Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

It has been over 20 years since director Oliver Stone’s original hit “Wall Street” garnered actor Michael Douglas an Academy Award win and made the phrase “Greed is good” a pop culture staple. In late 2010, Oliver Stone reunited with Michael Douglas to give fans of the original film what they’ve been waiting to see for years… a sequel.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” begins as Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is finally released from prison for insider trading. During his time away from the outside world, Gordon’s daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), has severed all ties to her illustrious father and attempted to live her life free from his shadow. By her side is her fiancé, Jake (Shia LaBeouf), himself a Wall Street trader, who believes that perhaps the best thing for Winnie is to reconnect with her father. With so much time lost, Gordon sets his mind to bonding with his daughter, but also reclaiming the vast financial empire that was once his to rule, no matter the cost.

So, after nearly 25 years have gone by as ardent fans have waited for the continuing story of Gordon Gekko; was this particular sequel worth the wait or even necessary for that matter? If you ask me, I would have to say, “Not at all.”

“Why,” you ask? Well, there are several reasons that I felt this movie wasn’t worth the wait, and I shall get to those in a moment. As for the second part of the question, that I can answer right now.

Simply put, even if this film had been strong enough to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its predecessor, a task which could have been accomplished, it still would have been unnecessary.

Reason being, the story of Gordon Gekko was finished when he was sentenced to prison. The original movie gave the audience plenty of insight into his character, and personally, there didn’t seem to be anything further to explore. This was a sequel made for the sole purpose of cashing in on the still surprisingly strong popularity of this villainous Wall Street tycoon and the current financial crisis.

As for what made the movie not worth the wait; for starters, the story written by Allan Loeb (“21”) and Stephen Schiff (“True Crime”) is surprisingly uncomplicated, completely derivative, and utterly weak.

First off, an uncomplicated story isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In some cases there are movies that could have been incredible had the writer and/or director reined in the proceedings a bit more. However, when you compare the richness, the detail, and multiple layers inherent in the original “Wall Street”; well, a much simpler story seems almost insulting by comparison.

Then there is the primary driving force behind this film’s plot…revenge. While not a bad motivator for character’s within a story, it can result in some undue predictability seeping into the mix. Sadly, this proved to be the case here, because it seemed as if every single major player in the film (aside from Winnie) had some vengeance kick they were on for one reason or another. After a while, this overuse of one single theme began to make almost every aspect of this film, from the characters to the dialogue to the story itself, feel extremely uninspired.

Also, we have the complete lack of subtlety on behalf of director Oliver Stone. For a man as experienced in the art of filmmaking, one would have thought that he would have figured out how to be subtle. But, one would be wrong. This shortcoming is most prominently featured in his use of kids playing with bubbles to symbolize all of the “bubbles” (or trends) that occur in the stock market.

Symbolism can be a useful and extremely helpful dramatic tool when properly utilized. However, when the same symbolism is used repeatedly within the same movie it moves beyond being a creative visual aide to being annoyingly clichéd and above all, insulting to the viewer.

By the final use of bubbles in the movie, I really felt like Oliver Stone thought his audience would be too weak-minded to fully grasp what he was trying to convey within the story; hence, the need for such blatantly obvious visual aides. Well, I for one understood perfectly what the story was talking about (without the aides, I might add), and found the over-used symbolism to be unnecessary and ultimately patronizing.

Another area in which the story felt weak was in its inclusion of the 2008 market crash. Many people, myself included, figured Oliver Stone would have used this movie as an attempt to analyze/attack Wall Street and the banking industry after the collapse of 2008. After all, when has Oliver passed up an opportunity (aside from “World Trade Center”) to inject his own politics and theories into a film?

However, nothing of the sort ever really occurs. Surprisingly, Oliver Stone never really delves into the details surrounding the market crash. Basically, the whole fiasco was dealt with in a manner befitting a fairly minor plot point in the movie.

Even from my perspective as a guy who grows tired of Oliver’s political and conspiratorial soapboxes found in many of his films; I expected more from such a provocative director. In this regard, the movie felt lazy and uninterested in actually dealing with any of the serious issues surrounding its plot.

Despite the issues that plagued this film’s story, some members of this talented cast did their level best to elevate the movie beyond its meager standing. The two headliners for the film were the increasingly popular Shia LaBeouf (“Transformers”) and returning star Michael Douglas.

Actor Shia LaBeouf delivers a solid performance as Jake, a young up-and-comer on Wall Street and potential protégé of Gordon Gekko. Shia proves that he is more than capable of handling strictly dramatic material and that he doesn’t always need to be delivering witty zingers amidst giant talking robots.

Veteran actor Michael Douglas is perfectly conniving and underhanded, yet charismatic as ever in the role of Gordon Gekko. Despite the over twenty year sabbatical from this character, Michael brings Gordon back without missing a beat and delivers another great performance. It’s just too bad that this return appearance had to occur in such a misfire of a sequel.

Speaking of misfires what was the point of Charlie Sheen’s useless cameo? I understand that Oliver wanted to let fans see what Bud Fox was doing these days, but couldn’t his appearance have felt a little less shoe-horned in? Not to mention, the cameo did nothing to really serve the story other than provide a moment of awkwardness for Gordon. In fact, it just further cemented the pointless nature of this sequel.

Anyway, back to the regular cast for this film. Actress Carey Mulligan (“An Education”) was good in the role of Gordon’s estranged daughter, Winnie. My only complaint for her was that she wasn’t really given all that much to do other than throw a few mini fits every time she caught a glimpse of her father (understandable given their history) or cry about everything. She’s a talented actress for sure, but this role was wasted on her.

Lastly, in the remaining supporting roles are Josh Brolin (“No Country for Old Men”) and Frank Langella (“Superman Returns”). Josh had to have been pleased to work on this film, or any film for that matter with some semblance of a cohesive story, after the “Jonah Hex” debacle. Even so, his character here is nothing more than your standard shady political type, and Brolin never really commits enough to the role to improve upon it.

As for Frank Langella, his role as Jake’s mentor/father figure was essentially an over-glorified cameo appearance. Certainly his character holds significant influence over Jake for the entire movie, but Frank was not given all that much to do in front of the camera. Just like Carey Mulligan, Frank was just another bit of wasted casting in the film and further proof of the vast amount of potential that this movie squandered in the end.

In closing, after more than twenty years of fans waiting patiently had finally paid off, the end result was barely an average movie that is nowhere near as entertaining or engaging as its predecessor.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is rated PG-13 for language.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Over the past several years, director/producer Michael Bay’s production company, Platinum Dunes, has attempted to breathe new life into old, stale horror franchises. After tackling Leatherface (“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”), the horrors in Amityville (“The Amityville Horror”), and Jason Voorhees (“Friday the 13th”); it was only a matter of time before Freddy Krueger was given his re-imagined due.

“A Nightmare on Elm Street” follows a group of teenagers whose dreams are being invaded by a mysterious, disfigured man named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). One by one the teens are killed within their dreams, while simultaneously dying in the real world. As time is running out, those still alive soon discover that they all share a common dark secret from their past that not only links them to each other, but Freddy as well.

Like virtually every other horror franchise launched in the eighties, Wes Craven’s original installment, “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, was easily the best the series ever had to offer. And as was the case with all of those other franchises, with each subsequent entry any quality this series may have once held was fast becoming nothing more than a distant memory.

To be honest, I was never all that impressed by this particular horror franchise to begin with. So, the fact that the sequels became worse as the years went by didn’t really bother me one bit. However, it was quite obvious that by the series’ final entry, 1994’s “New Nightmare”, Freddy had lost his menace, and had devolved into a shadow of what he had once been.

Despite my lack of interest or enjoyment in the original franchise, like his fellow slashers before him (Jason, Leatherface, and Michael), the only way he could feasibly continue his grisly misdeeds (aside from Direct-to-DVD), would be to reboot/re-imagine the character and his story for a new generation of horror fans. This is exactly what director Samuel Bayer (best known for music videos) and screenwriters Wesley Strick (“Cape Fear”) and Eric Heisserer set out to do.

With this updated look at the venerable horror icon, the writers did away with or changed numerous franchise staples in order to take the series back to its darker roots. No longer does Freddy let loose with one-liners from his apparently extensive repertoire of gallows humor. Nor does he really toy with his victims in their dreams; instead, he knows that at a moments notice they could awaken and spoil his plans. Thus, Freddy now dispenses with his prey in as expedient and savage a manner as possible.

Plus, Freddy’s disfigured appearance is no longer as grotesquely stylized, so to speak, but is much more realistic and menacing than ever before. Granted this is more to do with the make-up artist than the writers; however, the make-up would have to take its cue from somewhere.

As for the story, unlike 2009’s re-imagining of “Friday the 13th” which essentially distilled all of the high points from the original series into one movie, this one seeks to basically remake the original Wes Craven film. The main plot points are generally the same as before, but the writing is somewhat improved upon and the characters don’t seem nearly as annoying in nature. Plus, the circumstances surrounding Freddy’s appearance and his link to the teenagers are much more chilling than in his original background story.

Even though the story is an improvement over what has come before, the movie still seems to stumble about and feel repetitive in some places. Part of this is the result of the story taking too long to establish exactly what is driving Freddy to kill and why he has targeted these particular teens. And even though this is a remake, I wonder why the writers chose to recreate many of the scares and kills we had already seen in the original film?

I understand showcasing one or two of the memorable scenes, but not almost every single one of them. Because of this repetition from the original, the whole thing started to feel far too predictable after awhile. Just like with Rob Zombie’s first “Halloween” remake, once the movie got past the original backstory element that Zombie had created, the movie became a replay of everything we’ve seen before. However, unlike that film, this remake actually packed much more intensity and terror into the reused scares and death sequences from the original. So, even though it was rehashing what we’d seen before, at least it was more effective this time around. But, even so, that still wasn’t enough.

Anyway, moving along… Now, let’s look at the fodder thrown Freddy’s way over the course of the movie. The cast of actors and actresses chosen to portray the various teenagers being hunted by Freddy were average at best. A few of them did show some potential such as Kyle Gallner (TV’s “Smallville”) and Rooney Mara (“The Social Network”). These young actors had a fairly solid chemistry together, and out of the entire group of teens they seemed the most genuine and invested in their roles. That being said, they still came across as flat throughout many scenes.

Then there’s Thomas Dekker, who tries his level best to play the bad boy of the group, but he instead comes off as distant, clichéd, and above all bored with the role. Personally, I never thought Thomas was all that good of an actor on TV’s “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”, but I thought maybe he would have improved in the time since its cancellation. Apparently not, mediocrity must just be his strong suit. But, I digress.

Let us be honest though, with this type of movie most viewers don’t really give too much of a care towards the prey, they’re always more interested in the predator hunting them. This statement proves to be even more applicable when it comes to the legends of the genre.

So, how does Jackie Earle Haley handle filling in Robert Englund’s striped sweater and razor-fingered glove? To put it simply, he is terrifyingly perfect for the role. Jackie breaks out his surprisingly gruff, guttural voice, reminiscent of what he used as Rorschach in “Watchmen”, to chilling effect. From each anger-filled word he utters, movement he makes, and deadly action he takes, every second of his portrayal is teeming with evil and malice. Forget Robert Englund, there’s a new Freddy in town (I’m sure that statement will draw some ire from the more hardcore fans, but oh well).

After 26 years and seven movies (eight if you count “Freddy Vs Jason”), finally we have a Freddy Krueger that I believe can truly instill fear into his audience. While this movie has its fair share of problems plaguing it along the way, there is some potential to be found here. Perhaps a sequel, not tied directly to the original series, will allow this rebooted franchise to really cut loose.

“A Nightmare on Elm Street” is rated R for grisly violence, disturbing images, and language.

Harry Brown

When surrounded by evil and despair, sometimes the only way to set things right is to unleash the darkness within one’s self. This is essentially the theme for the recently released, gritty revenge thriller “Harry Brown” starring screen legend Michael Caine.

“Harry Brown” is the story of a former Marine and widower (Michael Caine) who has been content with living out his life in peace amidst the crime and decadence consuming his tenement. However, when his best friend is brutally murdered by a neighborhood gang, Harry decides that enough is enough. Calling upon his military training he begins his quest to discover who exactly was responsible for his friend’s death and punish them accordingly.

Since the focus of the story is that of crime running rampant and an elderly former serviceman driven to vigilantism to stop it, one cannot help but draw an instant comparison to Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino”. Unfortunately, the inevitable comparison does not exactly work in this film’s favor. While “Harry Brown” is an average movie, it sadly never attains the emotional depth and momentum that made Eastwood’s film so great. This is a real shame, because the potential was definitely within this film’s grasp.

The biggest problem with “Harry Brown” lies within the screenplay written by Gary Young. Throughout the entire film there are just too many missed opportunities for development (either for the characters or the emotional depth of the movie), inconsistencies within the story, and lulls where simply nothing of any consequence is occurring.

The missed opportunities are most recognizable in those scenes touching upon Harry’s family or rather the lack thereof. He’s a widower who was forced to watch helplessly as his wife slowly faded away. Obviously being his wife her death would leave a gaping hole in his life. However, I feel that the script could have taken some time to explore their relationship prior to her death so that the emotional impact of her passing wouldn’t be reliant solely upon the obvious marital connection of the characters.

At the same time, there is a passing mention that he and his wife had a daughter who died at a surprisingly young age. The problem with this apparently minor plot point is that once it is introduced they never really speak of it again. Not that I want a child’s death (fictional or otherwise) to be exploited in a movie, don’t get me wrong. But, I do feel that the inclusion of this bit of history for Harry would have provided a little more emotional weight to the character, rather than being just another question mark from his past.

Then there’s the inconsistencies found throughout the entire duration of this movie. These issues are glaringly obvious in regards to the various crimes the gang members cause and how widespread they may or may not be.

I mean, it’s quite apparent that this gang has a stranglehold over the complex Harry lives in; however, he seems almost oblivious to any real threat existing from them. This blatant inconsistency becomes all too apparent when his friend Leonard is telling Harry of all the mistreatment and threats he has received at the hands of these hoodlums. Yet upon hearing the news, Harry seems surprised that things are that bad.

I just find it hard to believe that such a violent gang would be picky as to which tenants they choose to abuse. So Harry’s lack of fear or knowledge of the gang seems unlikely, given the severity of the actions we are shown being perpetrated elsewhere in the complex. Admittedly he does express some slight trepidation when walking near the gang’s primary place of business, but beyond those brief moments he shows no outward signs.

On top of those problems plaguing this film, there are the moments of boredom that creep in periodically. For instance, far too much time seemed to be spent on just showing Harry doing virtually nothing but sitting around his apartment or eating or something equally mundane. Granted, this was intended to show how lonely his lot in life had become, but I didn’t feel that we needed to be reminded of this fact so many times. I’m not saying that there should have been more action sequences or something like that, but the story could have benefited from slightly more judicious cuts in the editing room to speed things up a bit.

However, not every aspect of the story was weak; the scenes focusing on Harry’s vengeance were especially strong and compelling. During these moments every aspect of the movie seemed to be firing on all cylinders. I appreciated that the main character, which is well into his golden years, was allowed to show he could still dispense punishment, sometimes in an extremely violent manner, without losing any believability. For this achievement I feel that credit must be given to the film’s first-time director, Daniel Barber. So many directors could or would have been tempted to go overboard with the violence to a point beyond the character’s physical capabilities, but he chose to wisely show restraint and the film benefited from this greatly.

Another area in which the film really succeeded was in its casting. Front and center is veteran screen legend Michael Caine (“The Dark Knight”) as the titular character. Michael plays the role to perfection with a natural ease and grace, but also an underlying sense of authority and a quiet strength that demands your attention. He seamlessly blends together grandfatherly qualities one would expect from a man of his age, while at the same time unleashing a surprisingly grim and justifiably violent side that has remained dormant since his youth. It is this intriguing dichotomy at odds within his character that elevated this movie beyond its less-than-stellar screenplay.

Leading the supporting cast is actress Emily Mortimer (“Shutter Island”) as Detective Inspector Alice Frampton. Emily plays the straight-laced Alice with such conviction, smarts, and realism that she easily outshines her fellow actors portraying other members of the police force. Unfortunately due to how well fleshed-out her character is and the strength of her performance, all of the other police officers appear to be inept when it comes to their jobs. I’m sure this was not the impression the writer and director wished to convey regarding the police force, but it happened all the same and the film suffers for it.

Alongside Emily in a smaller, yet equally pivotal supporting role is actor David Bradley (“Harry Potter” films) as Harry Brown’s best friend, Leonard. Even though David is not given a whole lot of screen time, he does the most with what he has to make Leonard a memorable character. This proved vital given that Leonard’s story arc is the crutch that the majority of the movie rests upon. I was somewhat frustrated by the fact that David wasn’t allowed more time in the film because he is a good actor, but more importantly, his scenes opposite Michael Caine were some of the strongest in the movie. Oh well, I’m not the one calling the shots though.

In the end, it’s a real shame that a movie like “Harry Brown” was hampered by this laundry list of issues, because the potential for an intense thriller was there. It’s just that the writer and director failed to capitalize on all of the opportunities presented to them. Even so, the acting in the film is very strong, sometimes to the movie’s detriment (in the case of Emily Mortimer) and the action is gritty and hard-hitting. While “Harry Brown” isn’t the most well-written film you’ll ever see, it is worth watching if for no other reason than Michael Caine’s riveting performance.

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

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Ever since taking the video game world by storm with the 1996 release of Tomb Raider, it seemed only a matter of time before the series’ buxom heroine, Lara Croft, would find her way to Hollywood. Fast-forward to 2001, and gamers worldwide were anxiously awaiting the release of Lara Croft’s first foray into the realm of live-action in “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”.

“Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” chronicles one of the many adventures of Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie), a modern-day, female version of Indiana Jones. After uncovering a long-buried secret from her father’s mysterious past, Lara learns she must seek out a powerful object known as The Triangle of Light. Upon embarking on this perilous quest, Lara soon discovers that she is not the only one interested in the artifact. A secret society known as The Illuminati hope to attain control of the Triangle, and if they succeed, our world could be in grave danger.

The fact that this movie is based on a wildly successful video game franchise almost guarantees that at best it will be viewed as a guilty pleasure by those that enjoy it. I for one can confirm that while I did enjoy the movie, the experience is firmly cemented in the aforementioned arena. Now, some could view this status as a bad thing, I for one do not, in most cases; especially, if the creative forces behind the film appear content with that rating.

The moment the movie began it was crystal clear that this was never intended to be taken all that seriously as a film. From the writers to the director and stars, basically everyone associated with the movie undoubtedly knew that this was to be nothing more than pure, unadulterated fun. Just watch ten minutes of the movie and you understand instantly who this movie was geared towards. Obviously, its primary focus was to entertain the core audience of gamers that love the franchise and any teenage guys (or adult men) who enjoy non-stop action, explosions, guns, and above all… seeing Angelina Jolie on screen. In all of these areas, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this movie succeeded with great ease; hence, the guilty pleasure status.

Written by Patrick Massett and John Zinman (both are writers on TV’s “Friday Night Lights”) the story appears to have one simple goal: take the audience from action scene A to action scene B and so on. If you’re lucky, there could be a little bit of character development sprinkled throughout, just enough to feed the potential sequel; other than that, the plot is fairly thin and not particularly imaginative. Although, for a movie like this, I really didn’t expect much more, so I’m not that surprised by the lacking storyline. However, due to the fact that the video games, on which the film was based, are actually quite rich in story (especially nowadays); I for one wish that the writers had put in a little more time and effort into making the story interesting rather than filler between action set pieces. Like I said, the writers clearly had one goal (albeit a far too simple one) and in that they succeeded, but a little more work would have been appreciated.

Helming the movie is director Simon West, whose previous work on the action-packed “Con Air” and the thriller “The General’s Daughter” proved he had what it took to make an entertaining movie. In terms of this film’s action, there is no denying that Simon West provided some very exciting action sequences; however, there were a few shortcomings where the action featured visual effects. These flaws, I believe, exposed Simon’s inexperience in the realm of CGI, and became a slight detriment to the final product. While scenes involving predominantly real people were fast-paced and exciting, those featuring virtual characters looked awkward and lacked the momentum that carried the other sequences so well. Case in point would be the opening scene involving the training robot that Lara fights. There are moments in this scene that look great, but other times it looks amateurish at best. Despite his action movie experience, perhaps someone more proficient than Simon West in the use of visual effects would have been better suited to direct this film.

Even though Simon West’s directing was sometimes hampered whenever CGI was present, that doesn’t absolve the various effects houses from shouldering some criticism. Some of the special effects in the movie look great even to this day; however, there were others that looked weak upon the film’s release and look just as bad, if not worse now. Due to the fact that over ten different visual effects companies were used on this film, perhaps “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” is yet another example of too many hands stirring the pot. Honestly, when this film was released there were numerous other movies in theaters that were just as CGI intensive, if not more so, and many of them looked excellent from start to finish. What it boils down to is this, there is no excuse for a movie with a budget as big as this one’s (around $115 million) to not feature top-notch visual effects. Shame on the various effects houses for not producing better work than what was on display.

In an all-out action movie, such as this one, it’s not surprising when the cast doesn’t exactly receive award nominations or blow anyone away with their performances. To be honest, I doubt anybody expected any different from a video game adaptation. Although, there was one member of the film’s cast that was a bit of a surprise to me. It wasn’t the choice that surprised me, but the fact that the person actually accepted the role. The cast member I’m referring to is none other than the star herself, Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft.

What made the surprise a pleasant one, aside from the obvious appeal of Angelina in the role, is that it’s fun to see actors and actresses who are willing to set aside the critics and the awards from time to time. Whenever a star chooses to participate in a project because it’s fun and shows potential to be a real crowd pleaser is almost always a treat. Of course, this decision could have turned very ugly for Ms. Jolie had the movie not been a success, as so many other equally talented actors and actresses have discovered. Even though the risk was potentially great, I’m sure the reward of a growing fan base as a result of a successful adaptation was well worth it in the end.

Prior to her casting, Angelina could have easily passed as a real life version of the character based solely on her looks or at least served as possible inspiration for the character’s appearance. Another reason her casting surprised me was because the role was so unlike most of her previous work, which had been predominantly dramatic in nature, not counting “Gone in 60 Seconds”. Even with her relative inexperience in the world of action films, Angelina handled the role rather well. There were just a few moments where she seemed a little uncertain of herself, but generally she stayed true to the character’s confident nature as depicted in the video games.

Aside from Angelina, the remainder of the cast wasn’t really comprised of any really recognizable Hollywood talent. Well, let me clarify, veteran actor Jon Voight (“Transformers”) does have a few scenes as Lara Croft’s father (he also happens to be Angelina’s real-life father), so I guess my statement’s not completely true. His appearance in the film, basically a glorified cameo, did assist in providing the movie’s extremely sparse dramatic moments, lending some weight to an otherwise lightweight affair.

Actor Daniel Craig, who has become much more recognizable the last few years thanks to his role as James Bond, appears in a relatively generic role as a rival tomb raider who fancies himself Lara’s better, despite all evidence to the contrary. Daniel plays the role as one-dimensional as the very paper it was written on. He never once injected any real sense of life into the role to make it more exciting or interesting for the viewer, and as a result his character is easily forgettable. Yet, I must give him some slack, because clearly the script didn’t call for much depth to this character, or any others; so, perhaps he wasn’t confident enough in his career or craft to make decisions that would affect his character’s story.

The other actors in this movie were adequate for their roles, but just like Daniel Craig’s, they were fairly straight-forward, cookie-cutter cut-outs of typical action movie characters we’ve seen a thousand times before. British actor Noah Taylor did provide the movie some fairly humorous moments as Lara’s assistant and technical genius, Bryce. Again, aside from some good comedic timing, Noah didn’t really bring anything terrific to the role, but he was at least more memorable thanks to his humor than most of the other supporting roles.

It occurred to me while watching the movie that the lack of any truly interesting characters, aside from the titular one, coupled with a fairly unoriginal and basic plot, could have served as an example of how not to make a film adaptation based on a video game or otherwise. However, the film’s terrific turn at the box office allowed it to emerge victorious over its various inherent faults. Despite its drawbacks, I have to say that “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” is a superficially entertaining action adventure. Just be sure to check your brain at the door first.

“Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief sensuality.

Friday the 13th (2009)

After hacking and slashing his way through ten films, although to be fair his mother did the killing in the first film, Jason Voorhees’ film career looked to be getting more mundane and inept with each passing sequel. With every new installment the killing was getting bloodier and more pointless as each victim became less and less likeable; meanwhile, the stories were becoming even more simplistic and at times downright ridiculous (“Jason X”, need I say more). Even after horror fans flocked to see the masked one go toe-to-toe with Elm Street’s master of our nightmares in “Freddy Vs Jason”, it seemed that getting Jason to go on another solo spree in a new “Friday the 13th” wasn’t something fans were all that anxious to see. However, in the same year the two titans of terror came to blows, producer/director Michael Bay released a successful retooling of an old horror classic “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. With the success of that reboot, along with the remake of “The Amityville Horror” two years later, it appeared audiences were interested in seeing some of their old favorites dusted off and brought into modern times. This brings us to 2009 and the return of Jason Voorhees in Marcus Nispel’s re-imagining of “Friday the 13th”.

“Friday the 13th” follows the bloody exploits of masked killer Jason Voorhees as he disposes of any and all trespassers who are unfortunate enough to come onto the property of the now defunct Camp Crystal Lake. Six weeks after a group of hikers mysteriously disappeared near the former camp; a brother to one of the hikers (Jared Padalecki) arrives in search of his missing sister. At the same time, a group of friends looking forward to a weekend full of carefree merriment soon find themselves inadvertently wandering off the beaten path and catching the eye of Jason. With the body count rising as Jason mercilessly dispenses his sentence upon all who come near; survival quickly becomes the order of the day. The question is, “How many of these unwitting young adults will make it out of the area alive?”

After ten movies focusing either directly or indirectly on the story of Jason Voorhees, not to mention that after the fourth or fifth sequel the quality of the remainder of the films dropped drastically, one would not be out of place to wonder if yet another “Friday the 13th” was warranted. Personally, I’ve never been all that much of a fan of the “Friday the 13th” series; I was more intrigued by the “Halloween” franchise (at least the first two films and then “H20”). I will admit that “Freddy Vs Jason” was an entertaining horror film that was much smarter than anything either of the series’ had delivered separately to audiences in some time. With that in mind, I didn’t exactly walk away with a desire to see another stand alone sequel in either character’s series of films.

With all that being said, perhaps you may be wondering why then did I choose to watch this reboot of “Friday the 13th”, especially since I wasn’t a fan of the character’s previous films. My answer would be this, based on what I had seen in the various trailers for the film, it appeared that this installment may be a little more realistic and of a slightly higher quality than all of its predecessors (neither of these achievements would be all that hard to accomplish by the way). Written by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (“Freddy Vs Jason”), and directed by Marcus Nispel, who is no stranger to the re-imagined horror film after helming the reboot for “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, this newest “Friday” film is arguably the best this series has seen in its nearly 30 year history.

The story this time around is much tighter in focus and aimed primarily at returning Jason to his roots, minus (for the most part) the cheesy dialogue and bad acting that plagued the initial series’ run. In general, the plot is fairly believable, or as much as it can be given the type of movie and genre it’s in; however, there are a few instances where we’re asked to suspend our brains a little too much in order to go along with something despite it clearly being impossible. Another complaint was that for a little while early on in the movie I found myself wondering if I was actually going to see much more from the story and its characters besides references and usages of drugs and numerous sexual escapades. Eventually, the story finally got moving, and the sex and drugs became less rampant within the movie. In regards, to the dialogue, for the majority of the film it was full of typical teenage banter, but without it being overly annoying. Yet there were a couple of moments where the dialogue took a nosedive and became far too clichéd or inane for its own good. The plot point involving the search for the missing hikers was a neat way of tying the entire movie together, and provided one of only a few characters you actually hoped would survive through to the end of the movie.

The cast of “Friday the 13th” was surprisingly better than your typical horror film cast. That being said, there were still only a handful of characters that I actually became interested in. Leading the cast of semi-familiar faces is Jared Padalecki (TV’s “Supernatural”) as the estranged brother of one of the missing hikers that ran afoul of Jason six weeks prior. Jared brings a charisma and likeability to the character that allows the viewer to actually root for his survival regardless of the built-in sympathy card the writers have included in the movie for him. Joining him in his search is actress Danielle Panabaker (“Mr. Brooks”) as one member of a group of friends that are spending a fun-filled weekend near the old Camp Crystal Lake site. Danielle imbues her character with warmth and innocence, plus there’s a surprising sincerity in her portrayal that cannot be ignored. By all rights, Danielle put more effort into her character than any horror movie role ever calls for, but it was that dedication that elevated her performance far above those of the other actors playing her vacationing friends. The remainder of the supporting cast ranged from good to slightly irritating, but what else should one expect when watching a horror movie?

Lastly, I wanted to touch briefly upon the main driving force of the movie, the monstrosity that is Jason Voorhees himself. In this movie I finally believe that Jason could actually catch one of his victims as he is more proactive in his approach to “hunting”. A much needed new twist to the character was showcased in the time the writers took in showing Jason as more of a predator stalking his prey rather than just a brainless behemoth. The fact that Jason actually runs in pursuit of his victims is a definite, and much appreciated, boost to how much more fearsome he is this time around. As for the Jason’s killings, they are definitely prevalent throughout the story, and the writers have clearly taken advantage of the opportunity provided them by Jason’s newfound smarts to become a little more creative with how he goes about his business. For the horror junkies out there, don’t worry about your favorite, or perhaps I should say one of your favorite, killers going soft after his thirty year run. This is the most violent and hard-hitting of the Jason movies, at least in my opinion.

At its best “Friday the 13th” is a decently entertaining, fast-paced slasher film that cleverly combines all of the strongest elements of the first three movies in the original series while applying a modern twist. When not at its best, the movie devolves into bouts of irritating arguments and conversations that are pointless from the get-go, moments that stretch believability too far or just relying far too much on an over-abundance of sex and drug related scenes. It’s not the best horror film I’ve ever seen, but it is one of the better ones that have been released here lately.

“Friday the 13th” is rated R for violence, language, gore, and sexuality/nudity.

Valkyrie

Over the course of Hitler’s devastating reign of terror as the leader of Nazi Germany he commanded what appeared to be unwavering loyalty from all under his command. However, during his tyrannical tenure there were a total of seventeen assassination attempts made on Hitler’s life. This fact proved that not everyone within his grasp was onboard with the Fuhrer’s genocidal plans, and that some were even willing to risk their very lives to put an end to his evil. Out of the seventeen attempts, the final attempt codenamed Operation Walküre, remains one of the most infamous. This is true, not only for how the operation was carried out, but also for just how far reaching the disillusionment with the Nazi party and the atrocities they committed had become amongst some of the military and civilians within the country.

“Valkyrie” is based on the true story of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), who led a group of high-ranking officials within Nazi Germany in an incredible assassination attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler. For them to succeed would mean Germany could begin to remove the stain of Hitler’s reign, but to fail would mean that all involved would become traitors to their country and death would inevitably follow.

For “Valkyrie” to actually succeed in creating the undeniably palpable sense of tension surrounding the events on screen is truly surprising to me. Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”) has crafted a fast-paced, albeit streamlined account, of the events leading up to and following the failed assassination attempt on Hitler during World War II. To achieve this, the screenplay focused upon the bigger moments within the assassination plot to give audiences a general understanding of what will happen should they win the day, while also repeatedly mentioning the possible repercussions that would occur should the coup d’état fail. Those two story elements, along with Singer’s quick-cuts in the film’s editing process, allowed the story to become much more exhilarating and suspenseful than what should have been possible.

The screenplay’s tightly paced, streamlined narrative definitely allowed the movie to become much more of a thriller rather than an historical drama, which was precisely how director Bryan Singer (“Superman Returns”) had envisioned the film. However, in taking this route the film ultimately suffers from being too simplistic and truncated. The plot of Operation Walküre was an intricately conceived plan that was not implemented on a whim, and it required finesse, precision, dedication, and not to mention a good amount of luck. While the film does touch on the fact that the conspirators did not take their decision lightly, it did appear that the operation was not all that hard to devise or execute. Now, I understand that certain elements of the plot and events surrounding it had to be omitted or condensed in order for the film to fit into a two hour running time; yet, in doing so, this approach made the coup seem far too easy to accomplish.

Another problem was that in some ways the story unfolded in an uneven manner. On the one hand the conspirators obviously feared the potential severity of the consequences should they fail, but at the same time the abridged approach to conveying the plot and its drawbacks made the consequences unrealistically appear as less threatening and not nearly as much of a hindrance to signing up for the cause as one might have thought. Even though Bryan Singer wanted to create a thriller surrounding this moment in history, I personally feel that he would have had far greater success with the end result had he opted for a more detailed account as one would find in a typical historical drama. In doing this, the movie could have taken much more time in laying out the various details of the operation, and also shedding even more light on the conspirators involved; therefore providing audiences with a much more fulfilling experience.

Leading the cast in this average and uneven historical thriller is the one-time Hollywood powerhouse, Tom Cruise (“Collateral”). Over the years, I have seen many of Tom Cruise’s films, and enjoyed a good majority of them along the way. However, within those plethora of films lies a myriad of performances, ranging from superb (“Collateral”) to good (“Mission: Impossible 2”) to simply phoning it in (as was the case with this film). What went wrong with Tom Cruise’s performance in this movie was his extremely flat, unenthused delivery, a general lack of charisma or captivating presence (the real Stauffenberg was known as a very charismatic man), and an obviously lacking German-esque accent.

In regards to the issue of the accent or lack thereof, I understand that many of the other members of the cast didn’t adopt German accents for their roles either. However, I know from some of their previous performances, and just their overall talents as actors, that most of them could have adopted a passable accent, if given the opportunity. Yet for this film, director Bryan Singer apparently informed the non-German actors that they were not required to convey an accent because he wasn’t concerned with making an historical drama/documentary, but merely an entertaining thriller. To me this sounds more like an excuse used to cover Cruise’s shortcomings as an actor than anything else, and an obvious ploy on Singer’s part to try to protect his lead actor from becoming embarrassment.

In my opinion, while Cruise did an adequate job in some scenes, his lack of commitment and/or skill in other scenes opposite the much more capable members of the cast made it abundantly clear that Cruise was way out of his league in this film. Thus, leading me, and many other viewers, to believe that any of the other cast members could have done a much more authentic and accurate job of portraying this historical figure, and that the movie would have benefited from this type of change in the end.

Alongside Tom Cruise was an extremely talented assemblage of actors whose performances while good, never veered towards the great or even exceptional side of the spectrum. This was no doubt a by-product of their performances being much more reserved so as to not outshine their lead actor too much in his attempted “comeback” movie. Among this group of men featuring the likes of Tom Wilkinson (“Batman Begins”), Bill Nighy (“Underworld: Rise of the Lycans”) and Terrence Stamp (“Yes Man”), I found myself disappointed by how average all of their performances tended to be. Again, none of the supporting performances were bad; I just expected more from actors of their caliber. So the movie just felt extremely wanting in this area.

Two other members of the supporting cast worth noting, although their lack of screen time makes them seem more like cameos, Kenneth Branagh (“Wild Wild West”) and comedian Eddie Izzard (TV’s “The Riches”) seemed to show the most promising performances. Yet their lack of time on camera made their historical figures’ inclusion into the story seem like afterthoughts. It felt as if the writer thought that their characters, based on the few scenes they appeared in the movie, were somewhat important to the plot (to what extent I don’t know); however, in the end it didn’t seem like they were worth mentioning all that much to him. This is surprising since Eddie Izzard’s character’s position at the Wolf’s Lair seemed very important to the conspirators’ cause. I guess these two actors’ lacking story arcs were just another example of how the trimmed down storyline caused the movie to fall way short of its potential.

“Valkyrie” could have been, and arguably should have been, another great World War II era movie that focused on an important event in history, that if successful could have changed everything from that moment on. Yet questionable decisions on the part of director Bryan Singer and writer Christopher McQuarrie, regarding making this a faster-paced thriller rather than an historical drama, resulted in a merely average film that will never be as memorable as some of the other entries surrounding this war. Not to mention a weak performance from Tom Cruise, and universally average portrayals from the remainder of the cast, in the end “Valkyrie” will go down as being unmemorable for a movie of its genre.

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

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

Five years after “The Fast and the Furious” sped its way across the silver screen, the third installment in the franchise, “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”, raced its way into theaters. After two successful entries into a series that most didn’t expect much out of to begin with, can this third iteration featuring an all-new cast, style of racing, and country gain enough traction to build upon the success of its predecessors or will it leave the series simply spinning its tires?

“The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” explores the illegal world of underground street racing in and around Tokyo, Japan. Unlike in the states, the primary style of racing over there is a much more difficult, and outrageous form known as drifting – where drivers’ skills are put to the test as they must navigate hairpin turns at incredible rates of speed. Joining the ranks of these racers is a convicted racer from the United States named Sean (Lucas Black) whose parents had hoped he would be able to start a new life in this foreign land. However, when racing is at the core of your very being, it’s hard to walk away when the temptation of high speeds is calling out to you.

Even though I had seen the first two films in this series, I found myself with little to no interest in seeing this third one. The only reason I could come up with for this lack of confidence in the film, was because I thought the second one was a little weaker than the first, even though it at least featured one returning cast member (Paul Walker for those that don’t recall) which garnered some favor; however for this film there appeared to be no original cast members returning from either of the previous films. So, in my opinion there didn’t seem to be a whole lot of potential for “Tokyo Drift” to actually be all that good. Based on the box office results for this film, I felt that my estimation for the movie was fairly accurate, and I was pretty sure I wouldn’t get around to watching it anytime soon, if ever for that matter. Then, there came along the recently released Blu-ray collection of the trilogy. Because I wanted to own the first two films on Blu-ray, and they were only available in a trilogy box set, I knew that I would end up with the third one anyhow. Which meant that since it was now in my possession, and I had already watched the other two, I may as well put this one into the player and see how it fares by comparison. Much to my surprise, “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” is actually a pretty good movie. Granted it’s not as good as the first film, and is perhaps a little below “2 Fast 2 Furious”; the film still did an admirable job of keeping me entertained to varying degrees from beginning to end.

Written by newcomer to the series, Chris Morgan (“Wanted”), “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”, was a surprisingly well put together story, albeit with a few contrivances and convenient plot devices employed. I figured that if this series ever made it to a third movie it would most likely be tapped out in terms of story, unless they would be willing to resurrect some of the characters from the previous films and delve into them a bit more. However, I was wrong, because Chris Morgan wisely chose to shake things up dramatically to inject a new sense of life into a franchise that was running the risk of becoming stale in a hurry if the status quo remained intact. The inclusion of the new style of racing (which was incredibly fun to watch, especially for someone that hadn’t really seen it done before), having not just a new city, but an all-new country as the backdrop for the action, and making it more of a fish out of water-esque story opened up several new doors for the series to walk through.

Even though the story brought new energy to the series there were some problems that plagued the script along the way. For starters, the character of Twink (played by Bow Wow) seems to have an endless supply of goods which he sells to whoever has the desired amount of cash. This wouldn’t be a trouble spot for me, except that Twink is merely a high school student, and by all accounts shouldn’t have access to the amount of goods and services he has at his disposal. If the writer really wanted me to believe that Twink was capable of gaining access to all this stuff via stealing or whatever, then that is fine, but I believe that we should have seen this at some point within the story. Instead, his character came off as a little too unbelievable for my liking. Also, the whole plot point of sending Sean to Japan seemed like a big leap for me. Sure he’s apparently gotten into a lot of trouble over in the U.S., but having his mom just give up and ship him over to his dad (who doesn’t seem like he’ll be all that good of an influence) seemed a little too convenient of a way to introduce us to the world of drifting. I know it was necessary to get the character over to Japan, but it could have been achieved within the story any number of ways, and most of them would have been more successful.

The last problem within the story that I will discuss revolves around the drifting style of racing that the movie focuses upon. I appreciated that a new style was introduced (as I mentioned a moment ago); however, there seemed to be numerous times that the characters opted to drift (unnecessarily) rather than drive straight (as in the previous two films). This was especially evident during a car chase sequence where all the drivers were drifting around traffic and other miscellaneous obstructions, when if they had simply moved over slightly they could’ve just driven straight (or relatively straight), thus gaining more speed to outrun their pursuers. It was due to these weaknesses within the story that caused several lapses in believability, resulting in a somewhat diminished opinion for the film.

Helming this third venture into the high-octane series is director Justin Lin (“Annapolis”). Lin brings a somewhat more grounded sense to this film than what was showcased in the previous film under the direction of John Singleton. The majority of the action seemed to be done using real cars, with little CGI enhancement being employed. The second film used plenty of real cars as well, but numerous sequences displayed obvious CGI usage in place of the real deal. With “Tokyo Drift”, director Justin Lin appeared to stretch himself a bit more as a director, getting away from the straight-forward, generic camera style he used in his previous American film “Annapolis”. For a movie such as “Tokyo Drift” to really fit in with the rest of the series, it requires that a little more flair be brought to the camera work, and Lin came through surprisingly well. He offered up a slick piece of American cinema that fits in perfectly with the tone and feel of the previous two films, while establishing the movie as a standalone entity within the franchise.

The cast for this film was comprised of numerous young acting talents, some more capable than others at their craft, and based on most of the cast member’s limited experience, I really didn’t expect much out of them either. As you can see by now there were several factors that led to me viewing this film with rather low expectations. Anyways, leading the cast is actor Lucas Black (“Jarhead”) who gives a decent, although flawed performance as Sean. With a slight southern drawl, that is inconsistent in thickness throughout his entire performance, and a few instances where Lucas portrayed a somewhat down home country charm when attempting to woo the ladies, there weren’t too many layers or points of interest to be found in his character. Truth be told, Lucas was probably the weakest cast member performance wise, showing nary a hint of emotion beyond a slight smirk or chuckle here and there, which does cause a bit of a problem due to the fact that his was the lead role.

Thankfully, many of his supporting cast members were there to help mask his shortcomings as an actor. Rapper turned actor Bow Wow (formerly Lil’ Bow Wow) has become quite the decent performer with roles ranging from TV appearances (“Smallville”) to several feature films (“The Johnson Family Vacation” and “Roll Bounce”). Out of all the roles I have seen him in, I think that his character of Twink in this film, is probably the most interesting, and likely the most fun to play. From his eccentric taste in cars (an Incredible Hulk themed car), to his penchant for finding virtually any and every possible good that his customers requested, almost nothing about Twink was normal. Even though his character pushes the limits of believability in places, Bow Wow does his level best to keep the character as grounded as possible, and delivers a solid performance in the process.

Alongside Bow Wow was actor Sung Kang (“Live Free or Die Hard”) as Han, a talented drifter, who befriends and trains Sean in the ways of drifting. Sung created a very interesting character in Han, by having him be as much of an outcast among the Asian community of street racers as Sean was being an American in their midst. I liked the way Sung always played Han as if he longed for a way out of the illegal street racing world he almost seems trapped by, and the way he looks at his “friends” in that world shows a clear contempt for some of the actions they take in order to get ahead. His was a character that was all about honor both on and off the track, and out of all the cast he was probably the most interesting of characters on display.

Aside from the three characters mentioned above, the remainder of the cast was relegated to either quasi-cameo appearances or merely one-dimensional antagonists. Most of the cast whether in a more developed role or not-so developed did a good job with their respective characters. Besides Lucas Black, who perhaps with acting classes could do much better work, the cast worked out very well, and managed to keep the movie’s story interesting without relying solely on the racing to propel the film from start to finish.

“The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” was an energetic and fun ride that I’m sure introduced many of us to a new style of racing, but if you’re like me you still preferred the other way instead. The film attempted to stand on its own as a movie without tying directly into what had come before it. In that respect, I feel that “Tokyo Drift” was a success of a movie; however, it sustained a much weaker box office than the previous two films, so perhaps this drastic of a change-up in a single installment wasn’t the best of choices for this film’s sake.

As a side note, the title for this movie seemed a bit too long in my estimation; couldn’t we have just stuck a number 3 on the end of the original title and called it a day? That’s all I’m saying.

“The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

2 Fast 2 Furious

Two years after audiences made a surprise hit out of “The Fast and the Furious”, Universal Pictures released the speed-injected sequel “2 Fast 2 Furious”. Gone were most members of the original film’s cast, except for Paul Walker who opted to return once again as Brian O’Connor, and joining him this time would be then-newcomer to the acting world Tyrese Gibson (“Four Brothers”), Eva Mendes (“Ghost Rider”), and Cole Hauser (“Pitch Black”), along with director John Singleton (“Shaft”) filling up the director’s chair in place of Rob Cohen.

“2 Fast 2 Furious” finds Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker), now an ex-cop, living a life in hiding, yet still trying to prove just how fast he is in the world of street racing. But when the FBI catches up with Brian, he is given one final chance to do what is right by using his skills behind the wheel to assist in bringing down an international drug lord (Cole Hauser), or face the next few years behind bars. To do this Brian must enlist the aid of a former buddy (Tyrese Gibson) who is just as addicted to the rush of high velocities as he is, and hope that their combined racing prowess will be enough to get the job done before time runs out.

With the original film, “The Fast and the Furious” audiences were given a movie that no one really had high expectations for, and in the end it became a massive hit for the summer of 2001. For “2 Fast 2 Furious” expectations were notably higher going in due to the great success of the original, but only having Paul Walker return for the sequel didn’t seem to spell good things for this installment’s future, at least not in my book. As it turns out I was wrong in my estimation that the missing element of Vin Diesel and most of the other cast members from the original would effect box office take, because “2 Fast 2 Furious” easily drove past where its predecessor finally parked on the box office tally sheet.

The original film was essentially a story about loyalty between friends that live their lives on opposing sides of the law (as it turns out); for the sequel writers Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (“Wanted”) along with original writer Gary Scott Thompson tried to take that initial theme and expound upon it. The main thrust of this film rests upon the decisions Brian made over the course of “The Fast and the Furious”, and how those decisions for better or worse have affected his life today. By taking this route, not only do the writers actually enrich the story for the first movie by adding some new layers after the fact to Brian’s character, but also strengthening this film by linking it directly into the action of the original (something that many franchises forget to do, and at times causes a movie within a series to feel unrelated in a way that is detrimental to the franchise). I did enjoy how the story gave us insight into Brian’s and Roman’s (Tyrese Gibson) history, and made their relationship in this film a parallel to Brian and Dom in the original. It was also interesting to see a different side to Brian’s character than we have before. In the first movie he was a cop, so he was bound by the law (to an extent); in this film, no such restriction is in place, and Brian is much more care-free and most likely being himself, thus making him a little more interesting as a character.

As strengthened as the film was by its link to the original, it was also hurt by it because it forced the inevitable comparisons between the two films to come even more naturally. The script for this film did have some weaknesses that detracted from the end result, some of which were problems in the first movie, just not to the extent that they are here. Numerous times throughout the movie the dialogue began to grow tiresome, especially the pervasive uses of the words “Yo”, “Bro”, and “Check it”, all of which seemed to find its way into almost every single moment of Paul Walker’s screen time. I know that in the first movie he used these words, and that it kind of solidified his surfer image; however, when it begins to become noticeable to the point that it’s annoying, something has gone wrong. Along with that problem there were also several moments within the story that felt slow, as if the writers weren’t really sure how to propel the story forward in an interesting way. It was at these times that the movie seemed to be meandering about aimlessly just waiting for the next action/racing sequence to begin so that the story could find its mojo once more. It was due to these problems, and a few other minor ones along the way, that caused “2 Fast 2 Furious” to stumble along in places, and in the end fall short of the standard set by the first film.

A staple of this series is of course the racing sequences, and there are a plethora of such scenes in this installment, all of which are fun to watch no doubt about that. Yet, the problem with a franchise such as this, or any action series for that matter, is that it becomes harder in the sequels to make the action (in this case racing) seem fresh and original. No matter how hard you try the racing is going to resemble that which came before it, unless you explore a new style of racing or just go completely unrealistic with the scenes (which appeared to happen in a few instances in this film). With this problem standing in his way director John Singleton did manage to at least make the racing interesting by including more stunts into the sequences than had been done before, some of which were a little harder to believe than others. It was this decision that helped keep the racing from feeling stale, yet also resulted in a more gimmicky feeling than the previous film’s races had. Despite all that, director John Singleton did a very good job in trying to differentiate his movie from the original, while at the same time keeping a similar feel and tone. Not an easy task, but one that he managed to succeed in doing.

As I stated earlier Paul Walker was the only primary cast member to return for this installment, and I had praised him previously for his work in the original film. However, for this movie he seemed unfocused and uninterested through several of his scenes, almost as if he were simply “phoning in” his performance. I’m not saying that Paul is the greatest actor of his generation, far from it actually, but his apparent aloofness to the material, and at times wooden portrayal, was very distracting. Despite the problems that Paul had in his role, there were several moments within the film where he actually came out of his funk, and delivered some very key scenes; namely those revolving around his past mistakes and how they have effected his decisions and choices ever since.

Joining Paul Walker we have actor Tyrese Gibson, who has become quite a decent actor in his own right since this film. Now, his performance in this movie is troubled like Paul Walker’s, but for different reasons. Unlike Paul, Tyrese clearly enjoys his role, and seems to really be trying to invest himself in the performance; however, his talent had not yet been honed enough to let him fully deliver in all his scenes. This is best illustrated by what is easily one of the worst line readings within this film, and reminds me of Hayden Christensen’s horribly flat utterance of the words “Don’t underestimate my power!” in “Star Wars – Episode III: Revenge of the Sith”, which is, “I have a problem with authority.” Wow, could a line be delivered any flatter and with any less conviction, obviously it could be if Hayden had delivered it, but still that was atrocious and by all accounts should have resulted in another take to try to get it right (take note director John Singleton).

Alongside the two leads is actress Eva Mendes as an undercover FBI agent working inside the drug cartel. Eva was very good in this role, and had the good fortune of actually receiving a female character that was given more to do in this film than Michelle Rodriguez or Jordana Brewster was in the first one. Cole Hauser as the drug lord gave a decent performance, and seemed to do the best he could with what he was given to work with. The problem with his character was that he wasn’t really a guy that was all that interesting, and truth be told he seemed more like a stock villain from any other action film. I know that the main focus for this series will always be the cars, but a little effort could have been put into making this villain a little more of a threat and much more developed as a character. Truthfully, even though we rooted for him, Vin Diesel’s character Dom was in essence a bad guy in the original movie, but it was the way his character was developed to be a more complicated guy than what you merely see on the surface that made him so interesting. That is what was sorely lacking in this movie’s villain; I’m not saying you need a villain that you can root for, but at least give me one that isn’t so one-dimensional.

All that being said, for me “2 Fast 2 Furious” was a generally fun ride with plenty of high-energy racing, a decent story, and average acting for the most part (with a few bright spots here and there); however, the movie never did quite capture what made the first one such a success, so it does fall somewhat short in the end.

“2 Fast 2 Furious” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Body of Lies

Following the previous 2008 entry (which was Don Cheadle’s average at best thriller, “Traitor”) into the ever-expanding sub-genre of movies focused either directly or indirectly upon the ongoing War on Terror is Ridley Scott’s latest Russell Crowe collaboration, “Body of Lies”. As so many of these types of films have proven over the last couple of years, audiences don’t really want to pay to watch a fictionalized account of a conflict, or something related to it, that they can watch for free on their televisions. But, does “Body of Lies” manage to side-step this major obstacle that many of its predecessors have fallen prey to, making this one of the rare exceptions, such as “The Kingdom” that actually manages to entertain, rather than simply remind us all (unnecessarily, by the way) of what’s going on over there?

“Body of Lies” is a widespread tale of political intrigue and espionage that follows CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), as he and his boss, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), follow the trail of a deadly terrorist leader throughout the Middle East.

Written by screenwriter William Monahan (“The Departed”), the story for “Body of Lies” works very well during the first half of the film. Monahan keeps the plot moving along at a very comfortable pace that doesn’t rush the story or allow it to become confusing. He gives the audience time to process the information being presented to them, for a moment, before moving on to the next piece of the puzzle (something that other films like this should maybe take note of.) When the story is focused on the espionage and politics of conducting the war from the perspective of those actually doing the legwork the film works extremely well, and is very entertaining; however, approximately halfway through the movie the story hits a massive snag that it never seems to fully recover from.

The snag is a romantic plot development that feels tacked on to appease the female members of the audience who may not be as into the spy stuff that has dominated the majority of the film thus far. I’m not against there being any kind of romance in these films, but this one in particular felt unnecessary and frankly, hard to believe. I mean, Ferris (DiCaprio) is an undercover agent working essentially behind enemy lines, and yet he never really stops to think that perhaps starting a relationship while taking on such high risk assignments might be a bad idea? Give me a break. I will give William Monahan some credit though, because he did still manage to give me some surprises in the latter half of the movie, even though the story’s focus and overall tone seemed to have shifted due to the romance. While the twists were somewhat surprising, the plot points leading up to them in the second hour were far too predictable, and at times frustrating when you stop to think that the first hour was very well crafted and top of the line by comparison. What I wish could be done is have William Monahan go back and re-write the last half of the script, completely removing the uninteresting romantic angle, and just focus on the tension-filled action and intrigue that comprised the far superior first half of the film. Had the film worked out that way, then it would have become the best of its sub-genre; instead of being just barely above average.

To director Ridley Scott’s (“American Gangster”) credit, even though the film’s story stumbles along in the final half, he does manage to keep things interesting thanks in no small part to his fast-paced, kinetically charged style of directing. The use of the handheld camera was a smart choice, allowing the audience a sense that they are right in the middle of all the action; therefore keeping them interested and involved to an extent. It was a very wise move on the director’s part, and one that most likely kept the movie from being completely derailed by a much weaker secondary storyline that become the primary near the end of the film.

Even when this film began to stumble around, stars Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Departed”) and Russell Crowe (“Gladiator”) continued to lend their best efforts to keep the quality of the film elevated as much as possible. DiCaprio continues to impress me as an actor of great range, depth, and talent with his recent crop of dramatic work. Back when he first became a huge star thanks to the extremely overrated mega blockbuster “Titanic”, I thought he was only alright, but not the kind of star that would really have any kind of staying power. However, after his remarkable performance in “The Aviator”, followed by “The Departed”, I am being forced to change my opinion regarding his talents. With Russell Crowe I didn’t really know much of his work prior to the smash hit “Gladiator”, but since then he has consistently remained one of the best actors of his generation, a testament which he has proven true time and again with many classic roles in films, such as: “Cinderella Man”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “American Gangster”.

DiCaprio’s character of Roger Ferris is a man who is very complicated, and apparently extremely contradictory in his motivations and sense of duty. On one hand he appears unwavering, cold, and calculated towards his duty to protect his country and its interests, which at times calls for rather extreme measures to be taken; however, on the other hand, he conveys a sense of regret for some of his actions and questions whether he is doing the right thing. It is this duality that makes his character appear interesting and more human, yet also makes one wonder about how consistently he has been written. For example, there is an event that occurs in the film which was set in motion by Ferris, yet when completed and some repercussions are dealt, he quickly flounders on whether on not what he did was right and/or necessary (even though at the time he felt it was), and even attempts to pass the buck onto his boss. This type of floundering began to feel distracting, and coincidentally began occurring in the latter half of the film, when Monahan’s screenplay was falling apart for other reasons.

As for Russell Crowe’s performance as the conniving, opportunistic, and morally questionable Ed Hoffman, it is a very different kind of character than many of his more memorable ones from films past. Just as he had done for “The Insider” and “A Beautiful Mind”, Crowe portrays a man noticeably older and grayer than he, and even appeared to add a few extra pounds to “fill out” the character. Even with Crowe’s charismatic performance and dedication to the role, I just don’t believe that this will be one of his most revered performances of his acclaimed career. In my opinion I believe Crowe’s performance did partially suffer from the fact that most of his time onscreen was spent talking on the phone. While plenty of phone conversations have made for some truly exciting and scintillating moments in movie history, I don’t believe a character should be on the phone almost the entire time, it just feels distant and impersonal to the audience.

What started out as a really solid espionage thriller set around the ongoing War on Terror, began to collapse onto itself when an unnecessary romantic plot development caused the film to stumble throughout the latter half of the story.

“Body of Lies” is rated R for violence and language.

Traitor

Throughout both 2007 and 2008, moviegoers saw what seemed like an endless string of movies focusing on or around the ongoing War on Terror. For a majority of these films, which ranged from character dramas (“Stop-Loss” or “Grace is Gone”), political thrillers (“Lions for Lambs” or “Rendition”), to just good ol’ fashioned action films (“The Kingdom”), the response from audiences was far from welcoming. Most of these titles, along with a few others I didn’t mention, suffered through a rather brief stint at the box office and didn’t enjoy much more success on DVD. To me the lacking success for these films would seem to be enough to get the studios’ attention, and make them aware that audiences just don’t want to go to the movies to watch something that involves a topic that can be seen daily on any news channel known to man.

Regardless of all of this, the political thriller “Traitor” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce was released to theaters this summer. If memory serves me, this is merely the latest film released in the War on Terror genre; I’m calling it a genre due to the surprisingly large number of movies based on the subject that has been released thus far. I personally question the reasoning behind even releasing this movie in the first place, especially in light of all the losses the studios have accrued over the previous films; but I guess the various studio executives share a sort of “It only takes one to make a difference” mentality. So, does “Traitor” have what it takes to win over audiences even with the touchy subject matter or does it fall prey to the same general lack of interest that has befallen the rest of the genre?

After a series of terrorist attacks in various locations around the Middle East and Europe, along with a prison break in Yemen, the U.S. government is desperately seeking answers as to who is responsible, especially in light of a new threat targeting the country’s heartland. Assisting in the investigation is FBI agent Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) who finds himself with a rather short list of suspects, and one man on his list is raising his suspicions more than the others. The person of interest is a former U.S. Special Operations officer named Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), who appears to have become involved with the very group that may be responsible for the attacks. However, appearances may be deceiving as the further agent Clayton digs, the more evidence he discovers to suggest that perhaps the truth is much more complicated than it initially appeared to be.

What are the key components that are vital to a movie for it to be considered a thriller? Is it a great story, terrific actors and actresses, a hefty dose of the unexpected, or a general sense of uncertainty that will cause the audience to be on the edge of their seats at all times? The answer is that it’s not just one of these items, it is all of them. Each of these components are key to creating a top-notch thriller that will keep audiences entertained and enthralled from start to finish, and possibly creating repeat business if all goes well for the film.

In the case of “Traitor” many of those items were present, but not all of them. For the ones that made it into the film, there didn’t appear to be any emphasis on consistently maintaining the quality of these components throughout the duration. What I mean by that statement is when there were genuinely thrilling sequences or moments of the unexpected, they would either end in a way that made them feel unoriginal or be followed shortly thereafter by something so obviously tired and cliché that you would have to be a fool not to notice. Basically just when the movie seems to be heading in the right direction it falls apart prematurely.

The story for this film is intriguing, and the fact that we are delivered a viewpoint from both sides, lends the film some credit for trying to flesh out the how’s and why’s of the ongoing war. However, writer/director Jeffrey Nachmanoff (writer of “The Day After Tomorrow”), fails to create a completely engaging film due to falling prey to numerous movie pitfalls; such as, an overuse of character stereotypes for both the terrorists and the government agents, predictability within the story, and essentially becoming too trite and generic in the end. Perhaps if the screenplay had been more polished and willing to go even deeper into the more unexplored areas of the war, which it drifted in and out of throughout the film’s duration, and not been so overbearing with its various messages it was trying to get across; then perhaps the final product would have been better received, at least by this viewer.

Even if the movie’s storyline did run into its fair share of problems, one aspect of the film that cannot be slighted is the generally high-caliber cast, led by the talented Don Cheadle (“Hotel Rwanda”). Cheadle gives a terrific performance as Samir, a man who has sacrificed so much in this war, to the point that he wonders if it will ever be enough; especially in light of the regret he feels over some of the decisions he’s had to make along the way. In the role of the closest person Samir has to a friend, and one of the terrorist group’s masterminds, is actor Said Taghmaoui (“Vantage Point”). Said brings a fresh, new approach to the terrorist type of role, not allowing him to be portrayed in a hackneyed, cookie cutter cut-out sort of way that I had expected. At times he almost gives his character a sense of morality (twisted as it may be), while providing some form of reasoning and motives for why he is willing to do and plan the horrendous acts his group will commit.

As far as the quality of the characters goes, the two listed above is where the truly developed characters meet their end, and the stereotypical ones begin. Leading the way are actors Guy Pearce (“The Count of Monte Cristo”) and Neal McDonough (“Walking Tall”), who are both very talented actors in their own right, yet find themselves misused in this film. The two actors portray your typical, garden variety FBI duo; one of the agents is a level-headed, eternal optimist (Pearce) who believes in a suspect until he or she is proven guilty, and the other is a hot-headed pessimist (McDonough) who would rather lock a suspect up and throw away the key than actually get to any answers. Alongside them is Jeff Daniels (“Gettysburg”) as your typical government handler who knows much more about what is occurring than he is letting on, and for the sake of his mission and secrecy (and the storyline), he keeps the facts from everyone.

Lastly, the various actors portraying the many members of the terrorist group were given the least to do in the entire storyline. Aside from Said’s character, the other terrorists were nothing more than a bunch of nameless, evil men with no rhyme or reason to their apparent madness, who want nothing more than wanton violence and destruction to engulf the “evil” United States and its allies. Please, spare me the same old semantics I’ve seen and heard so many times before, it’s beginning to grow tiresome. It’s a shame that more wasn’t done to capitalize on the talent at this film’s disposal. At least, the entire cast did the best they could with the material they were given, so even at its most predictable and unoriginal moments, the film remains better than average.

While “Traitor” did manage to keep me moderately interested from start to finish, albeit to varying degrees of interest; the movie’s various pratfalls causes the film to devolve into being just another generic political thriller with high aspirations, yet poor execution.

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