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.

Elektra

Spin-offs are something of a rarity in Hollywood. Well, let me clarify that statement for a moment, spin-offs occur frequently in television, but with feature films they are far less common. When they have occurred in the movies they tend to not be as successful as the film or film series that inspired them. A few examples of spin-off feature films that had varying degrees of success or lack there of, are as follows: “The Scorpion King” (moderately successful), “Supergirl” (massive flop), and “Catwoman” (even worse than “Supergirl”). So, with only a couple of decent successes with spin-offs (“U.S. Marshals” would be another one), it strikes me as odd that 20th Century Fox would choose to make one based on their 2002 smash hit “Daredevil”, instead of going with a direct sequel. Whatever the motivation, the decision was made to move forward with “Elektra”, and the final product we were given was an average action movie, mixed with elements of other assassin-themed films, and almost no connection to the original film that introduced the titular character.

“Elektra” picks up essentially where Elektra’s story ended in “Daredevil”, with her death at the hands of Bullseye. When all hope seemed lost, along comes a mysterious man named Stick (Terrence Stamp), a blind martial arts instructor that hopes to train and recruit Elektra to join him in an ongoing war against the evil organization known as The Hand. The Hand is also aware of Elektra and her abilities, and is just as interested in her joining their side as Stick is for his. However, Elektra’s death and resurrection has left her cold, and she now uses the training she received from Stick as a means to become a world-renowned assassin. It’s only a matter of time before Elektra’s destiny catches up with her, and she will be forced to choose which side she will stand with.

As I said before, I doubt I’ll ever understand the reasoning behind going with a spin-off such as “Elektra” over making another “Daredevil” film. I know that Jennifer Garner’s character of Elektra was popular, especially amongst male audience members; however, I have a hard time believing that the response to her character was so overwhelming to inspire the suits at Fox to believe in moving forward with a movie focused solely on her. I know that critics were unkind to “Daredevil”, although movie audiences were much more in favor of the film; but based on box office returns and an almost universal panning by critics, I don’t believe “Elektra” faired nearly as well as a “Daredevil 2” would have among moviegoers. So, I wonder now, can anyone at 20th Century Fox say the words “Colossal faux pas”?

The problem with “Elektra” isn’t only the fact that it didn’t make all that much money, but that it just wasn’t on the same level as “Daredevil” or anything else that Marvel was placing in theaters at the time, or since then for that matter. The storyline was very simplistic for the most part, and truthfully, when the story stayed simple, that’s when it entertained the best. When the story broke away from the simple plot and tried to get too complicated, that’s when things first began to suffer. This was caused by the writers attempt at including a paper-thin psychological sub-plot for Elektra to deal with. Another set of problems for “Elektra” were caused by the lack of originality, brought on by borrowing heavily from other assassin-themed movies such as “The Replacement Killers”; and lastly, all but severing all possible ties to the original film “Daredevil” that allowed this movie to happen in the first place. Now, the first two problems were troublesome enough to cause “Elektra” to lose points in my opinion; however, the almost complete omission of all things “Daredevil” bothers me the most. I know that many times spin-offs will not really do much to reference the original film(s) that created them, but most of those do not pick up part of their storyline wherever the original film left off. For that reason, I believe “Elektra” should have contained more than just a fleeting reference to the events of “Daredevil”, and had they done so, I probably would have enjoyed this movie a lot more than I did.

I’m sure after reading that previous paragraph that you are probably thinking that I barely enjoyed “Elektra”. Well, for some unexplained reason (and that’s the God’s honest truth, I have no logical explanation for why), I actually did moderately enjoy “Elektra”. It doesn’t make sense to me at all, but there’s just something about it that still appeals to me, regardless of all the problems I have with it, several of which I listed above. I’m sure the appeal of this movie has something to do with the fact that Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30”) stars in it, but I know that can’t be the only reason, because if that were the case, I’d enjoy “Catwoman” due to Halle Berry (“X-Men: The Last Stand”), and believe me there is no enjoying that movie at all. The only thing I can come up with is that “Elektra” is simply one of my “Guilty Pleasure” movies and nothing more.

Speaking of Jennifer Garner, she is one of the few bright spots for this movie, and I appreciated that she chose to reprise her role. Not to mention donning the bright red, skin tight leather costume this time around. I’m sure that the writers of the film, and probably even director Rob Bowman (“Reign of Fire”), had good intentions of giving Jennifer more to do than just appear somber and angry throughout the movie, in her defense she did always look great while acting as if she could kill you at any second, and no doubt the inclusion of the muddled psychological story for her character was an attempt to challenge Jennifer. However, even the best intentions can’t always make things right, because aside from receiving a paycheck and having fun kicking butt onscreen again, based on what little else she had to do in the movie, I can’t see any reason Jennifer would have for returning to this role.

Alongside Jennifer Garner, the rest of the performances in the film were a mixture in quality, with very few worthy of note; and almost all across the board everyone appeared somewhat disconnected from the material. I don’t know if a majority of the cast was given instructions to be flat when giving their line readings or what, but something definitely did not feel right much of the time. The only other cast member, besides Jennifer Garner, that I enjoyed having in the movie was Terrence Stamp (“Superman 2”) as Elektra’s mysterious mentor, Stick. For some reason, I enjoyed watching him, and it wasn’t that he did a whole heck of a lot; it’s just the way in which he carries himself, just seems to command attention.

One thing is for certain though; “Elektra” is by no means a great movie, in fact there were moments when I watched it that I found myself wondering if it’s just barely above average. But, in the end I do feel that the movie does a decent job of entertaining me, and for that reason, as I said earlier, it warrant’s itself a place in my favor as a guilty pleasure and not much more.

On a side note, 20th Century Fox did give “Elektra” the same treatment they gave to “Daredevil” by releasing a Director’s Cut of the film on DVD. Truthfully, I don’t know how much was added or was different from the theatrical release, but it does seem like there is slightly more story included, and the movie seemed to work just a little bit better.

“Elektra” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.
“Elektra: The Director’s Cut” is unrated and contains violence and language.

Speed Racer

I haven’t watched all that many episodes of the popular Japanese animated series “Speed Racer”, upon which the famed writer/director team known as the Wachowski brothers based their newest movie. So, when this live-action version of the series debuted in theaters earlier in 2008, I wasn’t all that excited to see it. To me it looked cheesy, childish, and generally uninteresting; although I always thought the visual effects looked impressive, as well they should coming from the creators of “The Matrix” trilogy. With that being said, “Speed Racer” has recently arrived on DVD and Blu-ray, and I figured I’d eventually get around to watching it, mostly to see the visual effects. Suffice it to say, I did finally rent the movie, and even though I went in with very low expectations after reading all the negative reviews it received, I have to say “Speed Racer” actually wasn’t the horrible disaster of a movie that I was expecting to see.

“Speed Racer” follows an up-and-coming race car driver named Speed (Emile Hirsch), who along with the support of Mom and Pops Racer (Susan Sarandon and John Goodman), is taking the professional racing circuit by storm in his lightning quick Mach 5. However, just as Speed is beginning to make a name for himself in racing, the corruption of this world quickly tries to topple this wholesome family, and without the additional aid of his girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) and the ninja-like prowess of Racer X (Matthew Fox), Speed and the entire Racer family may lose more than just the sport they love.

I know someone could make the argument that when a person goes into a movie with low expectations it wouldn’t take much for the movie to actually seem impressive to that viewer. And this is true, and I wondered if that was the case here, because I didn’t want my opinion affected by my previous bias towards the film. So, after I thought about it for a little bit, I feel I can honestly say that I actually found “Speed Racer” to be moderately enjoyable, regardless of what my initial thoughts had been. It’s not the perfect movie, not by any means, but it does provide some very entertaining and visually impressive racing sequences that have not been seen before in movies; and it was kind of nice to have a movie that was essentially safe for the entire family to watch, which is something of a rarity these days.

The screenplay written by Larry and Andy Wachowski, who also directed the movie, is for the most part very straightforward and simplistic, which is absolutely perfect for the kind of movie this is. The characters are clearly defined as to who is good and who is bad, making it easy for children to know who to root for; and the morality on display is quite obvious, but without becoming too heavy-handed as to take away from the overall story. Basically, this movie’s story is geared specifically towards kids, or those that are hardcore fans of the animated series, so all other moviegoers should just sit back, relax, and turn their brains off because for the most part you won’t really need it on.

However, approximately 75% of the way through the movie, the Wachowski’s attempt to throw in some plot twists and betrayals, causing the story to become a bit more complicated than it initially had been. The problem with complicating this movie’s story is that for most adult members of the audience who were not fans of the series, and therefore, have been able to just enjoy the movie for the piece of fluff that it is; we now have to re-engage our brains to tag along for the plot twists. When this occurs, at least in my case, it also allowed me time to begin analyzing what I had been watching, and before too long I started to notice little problems I had with various aspects of the movie. The problems I had were nothing too big to cause the movie to flop in my eyes, but merely annoyances that I had noticed when they occurred but had dismissed because the movie was still kind of fun and very fast-moving so I didn’t have a whole lot of time to dwell upon them. But, when the Wachowski’s introduced some plot twists, and attempted to throw in some drama for good measure, the movie kind of slowed down, which felt really odd being that the movie was a mere 30 minutes from conclusion; thus allowing me a moment to reflect. In my opinion, “Speed Racer” would have been a much better movie experience had the Wachowski’s simply ignored their penchant for over-complicating things, so that this movie could have remained the simple kids’ movie it started out as. Instead, it wound up being just an average movie that will most likely be forgotten over time by all who’ve seen it, when it could have been a classic for many kids to enjoy for years to come.

The cast of “Speed Racer” is a decent ensemble line-up with rising star Emile Hirsch (“The Girl Next Door”) in the lead as Speed. Emile does a good job of making this two-dimensional cartoon character feel just a little bit more real to the audience. His performance is nothing stellar, but neither is anyone else’s in this movie. I find it strange that for all the over-complicating the Wachowski’s tried to do with this movie, they could have at least thrown in a little bit of character development for the actors and actresses to dig into. Is that too much to ask? I guess so. Alongside Emile we have veteran actors John Goodman (“Death Sentence”) and Susan Sarandon (“The Client”) as Speed’s parents. Both give good performances, although I thought Susan was maybe phoning it in a little bit in places. Rounding out the cast we have Christina Ricci (“Sleepy Hollow”) and Matthew Fox (“We Are Marshall”). Christina portrays Speed’s girlfriend Trixie, a role that could probably be called her most sweet and innocent to date. Typically, Christina plays much more complicated or troubled characters, but she handled the uncomplicated and uncompromising Trixie surprisingly well, even to the point of being cute in a few instances. Matthew Fox as the mysterious Racer X was probably given the least to do out of the entire cast, but I imagine he signed on to this movie for the same reason as all the other members of the cast, a chance to work with the creators of “The Matrix”. I mean, seriously who’s going to pass up an opportunity like that? Even though Matthew wasn’t given much more to do than just fight as Racer X, it was clear in the little screen time that he did have that he was obviously having a good time.

From a visual effects standpoint, “Speed Racer” is one of the most mind-blowing experiences you can have at the movies. Almost every single special effect is amazing, as the Wachowski’s create their hyper-reality or whatever you would call the world of this movie. As awesome as most of the special effects were, there were a few moments I found to be weak spots, and I don’t know if this was intentional or not. One particular moment dealt with a chase sequence involving a semi truck that seemed unfinished and looked far too fake, even for this kind of movie. The other complaint I had regarding the visual effects, and I know this one was intentional, was when the characters would be viewed from the side for a kind of side-scrolling action sequence; which I presume was meant to resemble the classic anime of the animated series. To me these few moments were utterly pointless and felt out of place in a movie with essentially top-notch visual effects. I’m sure some of the fans of the series loved these moments, but they weren’t for me and I wish they would have been left out of the film.

Overall, “Speed Racer” is a fairly entertaining movie, it’s not the best thing you’ll ever watch, nor does it strive to be. Even so, it will provide you with a two hour escape from the real world, and some good old fashioned family fun that is at least worth seeing once, but probably not much more than that.

“Speed Racer” is rated PG for violence and brief language.

The Mummy Returns

With the success of “The Mummy”, Universal Pictures was quick to put director Stephen Sommers once again back behind the camera for yet another installment. Universal was wise enough to realize that success of the sequel would most likely hinge upon the original cast returning, a story that was bigger and better, and of course a heftier budget with which to create the visual effects that should surpass those in the original, which were impressive enough. Even with all of those components in place, a success is never a guarantee, because one essential piece to the puzzle is now missing due to the fact that this movie is a sequel, and that piece is originality and/or surprise. With the first movie Universal was able to catch audiences by surprise with the humor, adventure, and visually stunning CGI; however, with a sequel people arrive with a preconceived notion for what they expect to see which could end up hurting the movie’s appeal.

“The Mummy Returns” takes place approximately 10 years after the events of “The Mummy”. Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) are now married and have a young son named Alex. After a contrived series of events leads to the resurrection of the dreaded Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) in London, Rick and Evelyn find themselves once more in a fight against an army of mummies and the fate of the world on their shoulders. As if Imhotep once again walking the Earth determined to fulfill his quest for immortality wasn’t enough to contend with; another force is threatening to be loosed upon the world. This force of darkness is one born out of the darkest rituals of ancient Egyptian mysticism, and is even more powerful than Imhotep; he is the mighty Scorpion King (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).

With a bigger budget, original cast members, and the same director behind the camera “The Mummy Returns” had the potential to be just as good, if not better than its predecessor. However, as good as this movie was, it didn’t quite make the connection that the first one made with at least this particular audience member. Sure, it’s a fairly solid effort for a sequel, the humor and adventure is still in place, and the action sequences and visual effects attempt to be on a much grander scale; but, the story doesn’t feel as fresh to me, and at times it seemed that the big moments in the movie were hampered by the focus being shifted too much on Rick and Evelyn’s son Alex, who was an annoying addition to the film, and one that I wish hadn’t been included in the final product.

The story for “The Mummy Returns” as written by director Stephen Sommers is fairly fast-paced, but after awhile I felt the numerous flashbacks became irritating and distracting. The reason for this is that the flashbacks seemed to be rewriting numerous elements of the first movie, and in places seemed to cause the first movie to seem somewhat irrelevant. The inclusion of a certain character’s previous life being intertwined with that of Imhotep’s and Anck-Su-Namun’s felt out of place and didn’t explain why Imhotep didn’t recognize this character in the first movie; therefore, making the first one seem inconsistent with the storyline established in this movie. Other than that problem, and the even bigger one I mentioned above regarding Rick and Evelyn’s son Alex being too heavily focused upon, the story was a good follow-up to 1999’s “The Mummy”.

The cast mostly consisted of familiar faces from the original movie, all of which seemed to still be enjoying their roles as much as the first time. I still have to say that it is a bit disappointing whenever Imhotep takes on his human form instead of the CGI created mummy form. The addition of child actor Freddie Boath as Alex O’Connell was a mistake in my opinion; I personally felt the movie would have greatly benefited from the lack of the stereotypical mischief child with a heart of gold and an intellect far beyond his years, it is just too unbelievable. Dwayne Johnson makes his movie debut in the opening sequences of this film, and within the few short minutes his character is onscreen, I was instantly intrigued by this mysterious Scorpion King, and the lack of backstory only heightened the interest I had for this new character that I hoped could be explored further in later installments. As a matter of fact my hope was realized when the spin-off “The Scorpion King” was released to theaters; however, that movie was only average and didn’t quite grab me as I had hoped it would, and the character of the Scorpion King wasn’t nearly as interesting as I was led to believe in this movie.

Surprisingly, the element that was so eye-popping in the first movie is not quite as impressive this second time around. For some reason, the CGI appears to be all over the board in terms of quality and realism. There are moments where the CGI is unbelievable, but others look rushed and extremely fake that it’s surprising that Stephen Sommers allowed the movie to be released in such a state. I had read at one time that the effects were rushed to meet the deadline of the movie’s release, which would account for the inconsistent quality of the CGI. Whatever the case may be, this was just another aspect of the movie that should have been much better and by all accounts should have blown audiences away, but in the end left them slightly underwhelmed.

Overall, “The Mummy Returns” is a fairly solid, if not flawed sequel that doesn’t live up to its predecessor. I was pleased to see the original cast return for this film, but the addition of an annoying child, inconsistent visual effects, and a story that is good but not great causes this movie to be deemed as slightly above average when compared to the much stronger effort that preceded it.

“The Mummy Returns” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and sensuality.

Redbelt

The story of an underdog is one that always seems to resonate with movie audiences, most likely because at one time or another in our lives we have all been in that position, so we know what it feels like and can easily relate to it. In writer/director David Mamet’s recently released “Redbelt” we are given the typical Hollywood underdog story; however, that’s not good enough for a David Mamet movie, there must always be something more going on than what meets the eye. So, does “Redbelt” successfully push itself beyond the standard limits of an underdog story, or do the added subtexts cause the movie to ultimately suffer in the end?

“Redbelt” is the story of an idealistic Jiu-Jitsu instructor, Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiorfor), who lives his life according to a strict code of honor reminiscent of the samurai. After one fateful night, Mike comes to the aid of actor Chet Frank (Tim Allen) moments before the fading action star is about to be pummeled in a bar brawl. Feeling gratitude towards Mike for his heroic deed, Chet befriends the Jiu-Jitsu instructor; however, what appeared to be a kind gesture on Chet’s part may have been nothing more than a manipulative ruse to gain access to some of Mike’s training techniques for use in rigged televised MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fights, which Chet has a vested interest in. With this apparent betrayal at the hands of a dishonorable man, Mike is determined to set things right once more and earn his honor back.

This movie was kind of an odd experience for me, on the one hand it was a fairly decent drama, full of twists and turns, betrayal, and a good share of accurately depicted Jiu-Jitsu (the accuracy statement is based on what I’ve read about the movie, I personally wouldn’t know for sure). On the other hand, the movie is full of convenient coincidences; plot threads left completely unresolved, and an ending that is so horribly filmed and surprisingly simplistic that the movie seems to fall apart completely in the closing moments. With numerous positive elements working in the movie’s favor against some undeniably problematic negative elements I found myself moderately enjoying approximately half of the movie, but wishing the other half would have been a bit more refined, especially from a writer and director of David Mamet’s caliber.

Speaking of David Mamet, I am not one of his biggest fans, and whenever a new movie or project is announced that he will be working on I don’t anxiously await for it to be completed. I admit that I have enjoyed several of the movies and TV projects that he has written, or at least worked on, over the years (“The Shield”, “Hannibal”, etc.); however, after watching his last movie “Spartan” that he both wrote and directed, I came to the conclusion that even though the movie was decent, it just didn’t really work for me and if this was evidence of what a film written and directed by Mamet was going to be like, then I could easily wait for DVD or never see it at all and still be perfectly fine. With all that being said, when I saw the trailers for “Redbelt” I was very intrigued by the story and the cast chosen to flesh out the roles, but when I heard that this was another movie written and directed by David Mamet I kind of lost interest, and as I said would be the case, decided to wait for DVD. The movie still looked interesting enough to warrant a viewing, which is why I wouldn’t have been content to just let this movie pass me by.

The screenplay for “Redbelt” is a very well written drama that digs into the world of martial arts academies and televised fighting circuits. The story is the epitome of the classic underdog tale, as Mike takes on the likes of those much richer and more powerful than he could ever hope to be in order to regain the honor he feels he has lost due to his betrayal at the hands of actor Chet Frank and his cohorts. As sharp as the writing by Mamet is in this film, with its intricate web of deception and intrigue, for some unexplained reason, the climax becomes far too simplified, leaving many plot lines introduced earlier in the movie unresolved; plus, the camerawork for the final fight scene is some of the worst I have seen in a movie. I realize that David Mamet is much more skilled with drama than action, and I give him credit for including as many fight scenes as he did in this movie; however, the earlier fight scenes were filmed in a way that the audience was close to the action and could easily see what exactly was going on throughout the course of the fight. When it comes to the end of the movie, a majority of the time the camera is positioned in what feels like the other side of the arena, causing me, the viewer, to not be able to see much of what is going on. There are a few moments within that final fight where the camerawork is much better, but the jarring cutbacks to the distant shot completely disrupt whatever momentum the fight scene had. I am really surprised by David Mamet’s apparent inability to resolve his movie in a more satisfactory way, even though I am not his biggest fan I am smart enough to realize that he is a man that knows how to finish a movie properly, but for some reason he just chose not to do it here, and the movie definitely suffers for it.

As far as the acting in the film goes, everyone did an absolutely great job. Chiwetel Ejiofor (“Four Brothers”) was almost inspiring in his utmost commitment to his code of honor and inability to see the bad in others. I knew that Chiwetel was a very good actor, but I wasn’t sure if he could carry a movie on his own. For an actor that mostly spends his time in supporting roles, his jump into the lead role was surprisingly smooth, and his good-natured character most likely assisted in making him more relatable to the audience. Another performance worthy of praise was that of funny man Tim Allen (“The Santa Clause”), who was an odd choice for such a dramatic role, but his performance was quite possibly one of the best, if not the best, in his entire career as an actor. I had never seen Tim play a serious role before, not to mention a semi-villainous one, yet Tim nails the part perfectly, never once showing a hint of the comedian we’ve all known for years. Filling out the rest of the supporting cast we have Emily Mortimer (“The Pink Panther”) who plays a traumatized lawyer, Joe Mantegna (“The Last Don”) as Chet’s manager, and Ricky Jay who is a staple of many David Mamet films and TV episodes as an under-handed fight promoter. UFC fighter Randy Couture (“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior”) shows up in a surprisingly good performance as a fight commentator working in the MMA fighting circuit that Mike is attempting to expose as a fraud.

In the end, “Redbelt” was still an average movie, but the problematic conclusion causes the experience to be far less enjoyable than it started out to be. Perhaps if David Mamet could have taken a little more time in tying up loose ends, instead of setting up cameras in some of the worst positions imaginable for a fight scene, the ending would have worked much better and the film would have benefited considerably.

“Redbelt” is rated R for violence and language.