Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

In 2007, the often critically maligned, yet still box office powerhouse, director Michael Bay (“Pearl Harbor”) presented us with his vision of bringing gigantic transforming robots to life on the big screen. It was big, bold, loud, funny, and above all incredibly entertaining, not to mention taking many audience members by surprise in terms of just how much fun the movie was. I mean seriously, here was a movie based on an animated series from the 80’s that was itself based on a toy line from Hasbro. How could that movie be anything but absurd? Yet, somehow Bay and his writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (“Star Trek”) found a way to make it work that was believable and enjoyable to audiences, thus leading to an incredible amount of money being spent at the box office. Which brings us to the summer of 2009; two years after the initial movie blew audiences away, the inevitable sequel to the smash hit “Transformers” has arrived.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” picks up approximately two years after the events in the first film. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is preparing to head off to college sans girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) and car/guardian Bumblebee. However, Sam’s higher learning shall have to wait as the evil Decepticons have returned to Earth at the behest of their overlord, The Fallen, to locate an ancient artifact of Cybertronian origin that is hidden somewhere on the planet. If the Decepticons locate the relic it would spell certain doom for humanity and the Autobots. Now, Optimus Prime and company must band together to fight their deadliest foes in an effort to ensure that Earth and its people have not seen their last days.

If you saw the original film, and judging by the box office numbers not too many people didn’t, then you kind of know what may be in store for you with the sequel. Everything that worked so well in the previous movie is back, bigger and better than ever for this one. Not to diminish how great “Transformers” was as a movie, because it was incredible; however in my opinion, it was simply the opening act, and “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is the main event.

If you presumed that this film was going to be a visual effects extravaganza with a plethora of explosions, then you would be correct; however, it isn’t just a brainless exercise in blockbuster movie making courtesy of Michael Bay as some would have you believe. Written by returning screenwriting duo Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, along with writer Ehren Kruger (“The Ring Two”), the story for “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is much more epic and grand in both scope and size than that of the previous film. In conjunction with all of the visually intensive action sequences, the writing team maintained the quick-witted banter of Sam, increased the presence of his romance with girlfriend Mikaela, and built upon the friendship and camaraderie between him and the Autobots. The film also has some quieter, more introspective moments, as Sam struggles with being a young adult trying to discover who he will be as a man. Meanwhile, he is also keeping secret the fact that his car is a member of an alien race hiding amongst us and that certain members of that alien race may return someday to destroy him and everything he cares about. Talk about having some internal baggage to carry with you. All of these story elements together create a movie experience that has more going for it than being just another mindless action flick.

The original film was truly an achievement in the realm of visual effects by making giant, life-like, transforming robots into a reality. With the sequel, the talented crew at Industrial Light and Magic have topped themselves yet again by delivering an even bigger smorgasbord of extremely detailed (as they were in the first one) Transformers to feast our eyes upon. Plus, because of the fact that their arrival on Earth had already been chronicled in the first film, this one allows us to see the two warring sides of this alien race much sooner, and they are much more prominent in the story as a result. I didn’t know how far technology had come in the realm of CGI in the short time since the previous movie, but it appears that the capabilities these wizards now possess are leaps and bounds above what was available two years ago. For me, “Revenge of the Fallen” possibly sets the new standard for visual effects by which all other movies may be judged.

Returning to join the Autobots in their war against the Decepticons are the two leads in the film, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox, as Sam and Mikaela. Their two characters have matured quite a bit since the last movie, and are now trying to find their place in the outside world. Both characters are also more proactive in this film, and are working hand-in-hand with the Autobots in the effort to thwart the Decepticons’ evil plans. Another aspect of their roles worth mentioning is that their relationship onscreen is very believable, and their commitment to each other in the trying times that follow is a commendable trait that is often found lacking in today’s society.

Alongside Shia and Megan are supporting cast members John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, and Tyrese Gibson. All of these supporting characters are given more to do this time around. Although the characters of Lennox and Epps (Josh and Tyrese respectively) command more respect than last we saw them, it is Turturro’s eccentric former Sector 7 Agent Simmons that has undergone the most change. No longer an agent of the government, Simmons has been relegated to working for his mother. I liked Turturro’s performance in the original film, but his work in this one is even more enjoyable, and his eccentricity seems even better suited to his character now that he is a civilian.

Also returning for more are character actors Kevin Dunn and Julie White as Sam’s parents. In this movie their characters are featured a little bit more in the story, still not major players, but the time they do get on the screen they make the very best of. Both offer several moments of levity, especially Julie White, but we also get to see them go through the difficulty as a parent having to let go of a child who’s growing up. Hopefully we will get to see even more from them in the inevitable third film.

Lastly, the actors giving voice to the various Transformers once again do an excellent job of bringing these characters to life. From returning talents Peter Cullen (Optimus Prime) and Hugo Weaving (Megatron) to newcomers Frank Welker (Soundwave), Tony Todd (The Fallen), and Tom Kenny (Skids), each member delivers a solid performance that perfectly compliments the flawless computer-generated imagery that created these robots. One last thing regarding the voice-over actors, to be truthful saying Frank Welker is a newcomer to Transformers only applies to this movie. In reality, Welker provided many of the voices in the original animated series, most notably those of Megatron and Soundwave.

Boasting an even bigger scope, more action, humor, and almost 3-times as many robots than its predecessor, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a pulse-pounding, fast-paced thrill ride that will entertain you from beginning to end.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Star Trek

After releasing ten films under the banner of ‘Star Trek’, along with four television spin-offs, the novelty of this once proud brand name appeared to be wearing off. This in light of the fact that the latest entries for both mediums met with less than stellar critical and commercial success (“Star Trek: Nemesis” and TV’s “Star Trek: Enterprise” respectively). It seemed that perhaps the franchise and its audience needed a break, and possibly a fresh, new approach if it was to ever find success again. Which brings us to the here and now, the summer of 2009, seven years after the last feature film and four years since the last TV spin-off aired its final episode, and we finally have a new “Star Trek” film once more boldly going where no man has gone before. Under the care of wunderkind producer, writer and director J.J. Abrams (TV’s “Lost” and “Mission: Impossible 3”), along with screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (“Transformers”), the dormant franchise has been resurrected, returning it to bask in the glory of critical praise and commercial success, an achievement that has been absent from the franchise for quite some time.

“Star Trek” focuses, once again, on the Federation starship Enterprise and its original crew of Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Sulu (John Cho), McCoy (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and more. When a deadly new Romulan menace, led by a vengeful despot named Nero (Eric Bana), threatens the entirety of the Federation, Starfleet must rally its forces, including the recently completed Enterprise, to combat this alien danger before it’s too late.

As a fan of the majority of the “Star Trek” films (aside from “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier”), and generally enjoying the direction the latter films had been taking (“Star Trek: Nemesis” being my favorite entry thus far), I was a little unsure about the prospect of essentially restarting the franchise from scratch. However, since this approach has proven successful over the last few years with other franchises that I enjoy, for example the Batman and James Bond series’, I thought that if in fact the well had run dry in regards to further adventures set beyond the events of the tenth film, then perhaps this decision may work out alright after all. Of course that success would all depend on who was going to be responsible for taking the series back to its roots, so to speak.

Let me say that any lingering doubts or concerns I had in regards to this film and its chances for success were quickly laid to rest when word was released that writer/director/producer J.J. Abrams would be helming this installment. Abrams had proven himself quite the capable writer and producer with his various television projects and screenplays, so I knew that he would most likely not sit idly by if the story was lacking in any way. Yet, it was his work helming the very entertaining, third “Mission: Impossible” film that gave me even greater faith in his ability to guide the Enterprise back into the spotlight once more.

On top of the fact that such a multi-talented person of J.J. Abrams’ caliber would be directing the eleventh entry into the venerable series, was the announcement that the series would not only serve as a reboot of sorts, but it would still recognize the films that have come before it; instead of just ignoring them altogether which is what most of the reboots have done. Crafting this epic story was the writing duo of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Orci and Kurtzman, along with Abrams, were sensible enough to not only cater to the hardcore fans of the show and its subsequent movies and television spin-offs, but also make the story accessible to a whole new generation of moviegoers that may not have been previously interested in anything related to ‘Star Trek’.

The plot of “Star Trek” meets all the necessary criteria for the making of a massive summer blockbuster. Featuring plenty of drama, intensity, humor, incredible action and visual effects, and even a little bit of romance thrown in for good measure, this film has a little something for virtually every possible member of the audience. For the newcomers to the series, the story doesn’t require you to have seen, or have any previous knowledge of the other films in the series. The film takes an appropriate amount of time to introduce you to all of the primary players in the film, giving them each their moment or two to shine. So, if you are unfamiliar with these iconic characters you soon won’t be, once the incredibly fast-paced two hours of this film are through with you.

Now, don’t fret any of you die hard fans out there that may not have seen this film yet, although I doubt there are all that many of you left that this statement could apply to at this point. There are plenty of insider references to previous events or famous quotes from your favorite characters for you to latch onto. Even though this film was made in a way that it could appeal to a much broader spectrum of the audience, it never faltered from supplying the core fan base with plenty of sci-fi goodness for them to embrace along the way. So, make no mistake, this entry into the ever-expanding Star Trek universe is a film that is completely deserving of carrying on the legacy of this epic series, and it never once loses sight of that responsibility.

Speaking of responsibility to the series’ legacy, keeping these iconic characters alive is an all-new bunch of actors chosen to embody them in their younger years. This is no small feat when considering these roles were made famous many years ago by a talented and beloved cast of actors and actresses. Winning over the hearts and minds of new fans of the series shouldn’t be all that hard for this cast; however, proving to the longtime fans of the franchise, some dating all the way back to the original series, may prove much harder to accomplish.

Leading the cast are two talented actors, Chris Pine (“Smokin’ Aces”) and Zachary Quinto (TV’s “Heroes”), portraying the coveted roles of Kirk and Spock respectively. Chris Pine brings a normal speech pattern to Kirk, opting not to emulate William Shatner’s pause-ridden pattern of speech; however, Chris did retain Kirk’s sense of humor, arrogance, and no-quit attitude. His performance provides audiences with a new interpretation to the character while remaining true to the heart and soul of Kirk. For Zachary Quinto his portrayal of Spock was partially achieved before he ever read a single line of dialogue because he bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Leonard Nimoy (who had portrayed the character in the previous incarnation). Out of the entire ensemble cast, Quinto is probably the brightest spot in the group, as his performance is absolutely perfect for the character. Even though his performance so closely resembles that of his predecessor’s, he never once ventures into the realm of imitation as so many other actors may have been tempted to do.

Supporting the two leads, is quite the gifted ensemble of actors and actresses ranging from Simon Pegg (“Hot Fuzz”), Karl Urban (“The Bourne Supremacy”), John Cho (Harold from the ‘Harold and Kumar’ films), Zoe Saldana (“Vantage Point”), and Anton Yelchin (“Teminator: Salvation”). Simon Pegg brings a much more hilarious approach to the brilliant engineer known as Montgomery Scott, best known as Scotty, that some may find distracting due to his character being more stoic in previous appearances. However, since this film takes place at a time in the character’s life that hasn’t been explored, I for one view this as an acceptable revision. Karl Urban, much like Zachary Quinto, gives an almost pitch-perfect portrayal of Dr. McCoy. I found it interesting to see that as brilliant a doctor as McCoy was in the previous films, we get to see a slightly inexperienced version of him here, while he’s still incredibly smart, he does make mistakes and isn’t nearly as sure of his decisions as he is later on. John Cho and Zoe Saldana don’t really get to break all that much new ground with their characters, Sulu and Uhura, yet the two young talents do get a few moments to shine within the film. Most notably for fans of the original series, the various hints to Sulu’s sword fighting abilities are finally showcased allowing a new, more action-oriented side of the character to emerge. The only slight problem that I have with the casting is that perhaps Anton Yelchin was slightly mis-cast as Pavel Chekov. While he brings the character’s trademark substitution of w’s for v’s out in almost every line of dialogue he has, he doesn’t strike me as a good fit for the character. Even with that complaint, Anton did do a good job as Chekov; I just don’t see him ever becoming the man we all know.

Rounding out the cast is veteran character actor Bruce Greenwood (“I, Robot”) and Eric Bana (“Hulk”). Bruce Greenwood portrays the original captain of this starship Enterprise named Christopher Pike. He’s a seasoned veteran of Starfleet, who expects nothing but excellence from all who serve under his command. Greenwood’s portrayal of Pike reminds me of Captain Kirk in the previous films, where he was much more reserved and in control of every situation, never willing to sacrifice others for a mission that he wasn’t willing to undertake himself. As for Eric Bana who plays the vengeful Romulan known as Nero, he wasn’t given a whole lot to do with the character other than appear menacing and bark orders. There were a few flashes of character development for him, but nothing so substantial as to make him appear any more or less dangerous than any other villain you would find in a ‘Star Trek’ movie. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t make any mention of his presence in the film; Leonard Nimoy reprises his role of Spock once again. Surprisingly, Nimoy’s appearance in the film isn’t relegated to being a bit of stunt casting for a glorified cameo; instead, the presence of the much older Spock is integral to the movie’s central plotline and provides some very fun moments within the film.

Over 40 years since the original series first introduced us to this enduring franchise, and despite a few rough patches of waning popularity over the last several years, J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” restores the series to its former magnificence. With a great story, a terrific cast, and visual effects that are nothing short of incredible, “Star Trek” has become my new favorite entry into this series, removing “Star Trek: Nemesis” from the coveted position.

“Star Trek” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sexuality.

X2: X-Men United

Three years after the enormous success of “X-Men”, 20th Century Fox released “X2: X-Men United”. The sequel reunited most of the original film’s cast along with director Bryan Singer. Where “X-Men” introduced us to the world of these warring mutants, “X2: X-Men United” blew that world wide open, and delivered to audiences a sequel easily superior to its predecessor.

“X2: X-Men United” basically picks up where “X-Men” left off, Wolverine is still searching for some hint as to who he really is, Magneto is locked away, while Professor Xavier and the rest of the X-Men are trying to ensure peace between humans and mutants while maintaining a low profile. Meanwhile, secretly waging a personal war upon all mutants is a renegade Colonel named Stryker (Brian Cox), who is determined to see all mutants dead or dying, and if some normal people get in the way, so be it. To stop this madman and his powerful forces, the X-Men must stand together, alongside their sworn enemies if necessary, or else mutantkind’s days are numbered.

“X2: X-Men United” provided moviegoers with everything that was great about the original film, plus so much more. Boasting even more action, a story on a much grander scale, more impressive special effects, and not to mention more mutants, there was no doubt in my mind that “X2” would have what it takes to soar to even greater heights than its predecessor.

Written by screenwriters Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris, and David Hayter (“X-Men”) the story for this sequel continued many of the threads left dangling at the conclusion of the first film, while going off in an all-new and exciting direction (especially for fans of the comic books) for some of the characters. The first film spent much of its time focusing on Wolverine’s decision on whether or not to side with the X-Men against the villainous Magneto, in this film the focus still remains somewhat on Wolverine; however for this film to succeed the scope had to be increased, and “X2” never fails to meet that requirement. This time the story delves deeper into the relationships that comprise the team, and introduces some rather intense moments and new challenges for the characters to deal with. Within these challenges and the understandably heightened drama, one can definitely take note of the fact that the stakes were much higher in this installment and the decisions and actions being taken were going to have some very far reaching consequences for all involved.

The original film was a surprising movie for many people because of the amount of time spent within the story developing the characters, something that had generally been unheard of in many comic book adaptations. “X2” took the already established characters and dug even deeper (as I stated a moment ago), while at the same time introducing us to a couple of new main characters. I was surprised by the fact that in a two hour movie, the writers found enough time to continue exploring the already established characters left over from the initial film (of which there are several), while still managing to give us new characters to enjoy without skimping on their development as well

I found it fascinating how the inclusion of someone as bitter and bigoted as Colonel Stryker (Brian Cox) for the film’s primary villain worked as well as it did. His character if handled improperly could have ended up being just a militarized version of the Senator Kelly character from the original film; instead, he was a multi-layered character that didn’t just hate mutants because of what they could do or the fact that they were different. No, his reasons were much more complicated, and it was because of how richly developed his character was that he was such an interesting and without a doubt fearsome foe for the mutants. Brian Cox as an actor always delivers great performances in every film he appears in, and whether they are large or small roles, his character is always memorable (“The Bourne Supremacy” is an example of a larger role or “Braveheart” for a smaller example). As Stryker, Brian plays him as a patriot who only wants to eliminate the mutant problem for the sake of national security, but at the same time subtly conveys the sinister nature inherent in his crusade for what is essentially a mutant genocide without ever going over-the-top or venturing into your prototypical villain territory.

The other new character was the teleporting mutant known as Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming). While I’ve never been all that fond of the character in the comics, I must say that this film managed to make him a really intriguing, complex character and not to mention make teleporting one cool power to have (this had more to do with the incredible work of the visual effects team than anything else). In the comics Nightcrawler never seemed all that useful other than getting the team into a room that they couldn’t bust into as easily, but this film actually made him a useful addition to the team, and even a mutant that could be feared if provoked into action. As far as Alan’s portrayal of the character I would have to say that he did a great job with the role, and gave the character the perfect balance of self-doubt, faith, and quirkiness that allowed for such a strange creature to seem so real to the audience.

The rest of the cast for “X2: X-Men United” (meaning those reprising their roles from the first film) gave strong performances with only a minor gripe here or there, and some even improved upon what they had done prior. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine had already given the definitive performance as the character, but in this film he takes it even further by getting to explore some new territory with the hero. For instance we finally get to see what Wolverine can really do when allowed to cut loose (which made for an incredibly entertaining action sequence), also some new revelations about his past prompts him to doubt the kind of man he was prior to the hero he has become and to wonder if he really wants to know the secret behind his past.

For Shawn Ashmore, his character of Bobby Drake/Iceman was given so much more to do this time around. Before he was used as nothing more than the nice boy at school for Rogue to identify with; however, in this film he has become her boyfriend and is beginning to find his way on the path to becoming a future X-Man. If I had one minor complaint about Shawn’s performance it would be the fact that sometimes Bobby comes off as being a little too timid and insecure. Granted those attributes would be due to the writers, which of course took their cue from the comics to an extent, regardless the character at times appears too weak that you almost wonder what Rogue sees in him.

Unfortunately in a film packed with this many characters some get put on the backburner and aren’t given the screen time their character deserves. This would be the case for the mutant known as Cyclops (James Marsden). In the original film, Cyclops was given several key moments to shine as one of the integral members of the team; however, in this installment he is relegated to a handful of scenes. It’s a shame that a character as fun as Cyclops can be, and with as rich of a history as he has in the comics that the writers didn’t choose to do more with him. I guess sometimes the story just doesn’t work as well with some characters as it does with others. Even with the truncated role, James Marsden still brings the character to life in a manner perfectly befitting his comic book counterpart.

Lastly, director Bryan Singer (“X-Men” and “Superman Returns”) deserves mentioning as his hard work allowed for this film series to raise the bar in terms of what comic book movies should aspire to. With “X-Men” and especially with “X2” he proved that audiences want more than just visual effects extravaganzas and big fight sequences, they desire a story that sucks them in and remains grounded in a reality similar to our own, along with fully developed characters that they can invest in and relate to.

“X2: X-Men United” was an excellent movie and comic book adaptation rolled up in one. While “X-Men” was a really good movie, this one blows it out of the water with great ease. Granted there are a few minor complaints about some character treatment, but by and large everything in this adaptation worked brilliantly. Just like “The Dark Knight”, “X2: X-Men United” is a comic book sequel that transcends the stigma of being just another run-of-the-mill comic book movie and stands proud as one of the best ever made.

“X2: X-Men United” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and mild sexuality.

The Incredible Hulk

The summer of 2008 proved to be an extremely lucrative one for Marvel with the one-two punch of “Iron Man” followed by “The Incredible Hulk”. Granted in terms of monetary value and profit margin, Marvel gained more from “Iron Man” than their second attempt at adapting the not-so jolly green giant for the big screen. Even so, under their new Marvel Studios filmmaking branch it seems that the self-proclaimed “House of Ideas” is off to a terrific start, and has chosen to make very solid, entertaining film adaptations that hold true to their source material. As some of you may remember, and no doubt many of you did (due to the lower box office totals, I would say it’s safe to say most of you did), Marvel’s previous attempt to adapt their angry jade “hero” didn’t exactly go over very well with comic book fans and general moviegoers, essentially making “Hulk” into Marvel’s first flop of the new comic book movie age.

Which brings us to Marvel’s second, yet first self-produced, remake “The Incredible Hulk” (their first re-do was 2004’s “The Punisher”). To me the film would be more accurately viewed as Marvel’s way of saying, “We are incredibly sorry for stealing away two hours of your life with the psycho-babble in Ang Lee’s whine-fest of an excuse for a movie.” But that tagline for the film would probably be too long and distracting. Thus, we now find ourselves with yet another Hulk movie on our hands, but is this film all that different from what came before? In a word…yes. The difference between the two adaptations is basically as follows: unlike 2003’s “Hulk” (Ang Lee’s version, for those not keeping up) this new film knows what it takes to make the character work for audiences. Although it’s really a shame that this Hulk wasn’t able to smash so much more at the box office (we can all thank Ang Lee for ruining that possibility), after all the character’s potential was fully and spectacularly realized in this adaptation.

“The Incredible Hulk” tells the story of brilliant scientist Bruce Banner, who has been living in secrecy from the prying eyes of the United States government for several years as he attempts to rid himself of a very strong curse…the Hulk that resides within. After some unfortunate events lead to the military discovering his whereabouts, Banner soon discovers that he has no choice but to stand and fight against those who would use the monster within him as a weapon of destruction.

After I watched this film there was only one string of thoughts I had running through my mind, “Now, that is what an Incredible Hulk movie is all about! Intense action, plenty of drama, bits of romance and comedy sprinkled throughout, not to mention a talented cast of actors and actresses, and visual effects that will blow you away. If you haven’t been able to forget about Ang Lee’s travesty, then you haven’t seen this film yet.” Well, maybe my thoughts weren’t exactly like that, but they were similar in nature, I know that for a fact.

Anyways, let’s begin by discussing the actors chosen to bring their respective comic book counterparts to life on the big screen. Each cast member was perfectly chosen, even if the choice didn’t seem that obvious from the get-go. For instance, actor Edward Norton (“American History X”) was not my first choice for Bruce Banner/The Hulk, and even after the initial trailers were released I still wasn’t sure if he could do some of the non-Hulk action that the film was clearly calling for. I do not doubt that Edward could handle the dramatic side of the character, but all the running, jumping, and even some fighting were not things this actor is normally known for in his work. However, I am more than willing to admit that I was mistaken in my uncertainty regarding his abilities, and Norton truly owned the role of Banner. He imbues this tortured soul with such an anxious intensity and passion for finding a cure that the audience fully understands and relates to everything he is going through. Beneath all the angst over his curse, Norton also reveals a man broken down by his lot in life and the sacrifices he’s been forced to make to protect those he loves from himself. Every aspect of Edward’s portrayal was perfectly in keeping with the character’s emotions, motivations, and thought processes in the comic books.

Joining Edward Norton is the talented veteran actor William Hurt (“A History of Violence”) portraying the man hunting Bruce Banner, General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross. This casting choice made perfect sense to me, as William always seems to immerse himself into any character thrown his way, and it’s that very dedication to his craft that made him the prime candidate for this modern day Captain Ahab. William delivers a performance that is rife with an intense hatred that drives him forward on his borderline nihilistic mission to capture Banner and unleash the beast. Assisting Ross in this dangerous endeavor is Tim Roth (TV’s “Lie to Me”) as Emil Blonsky, a military man past his prime, yet still thriving on the thrill of battle. Roth creates in Blonsky a warrior without any sense of remorse, in essence a sociopath whose mindset makes him both the ideal soldier for Ross’ mission and the perfect weapon for the general to throw into the Hulk’s path.

Lastly, actress Liv Tyler (“Armageddon”) as Betty Ross was even more of a maligned pick in my book than Edward Norton. I’ve never been all that taken by Liv in any of her roles, and even after her performance here (which is very good by the way) I still would have preferred Jennifer Connelly (who portrayed Betty in Ang Lee’s “Hulk”), but that is driven more by her appearance than anything else. That being said, Liv does a very good job with Betty, giving her plenty of dimension and depth of character, making her much more than just the damsel in distress. She’s very much an independent woman, and her portrayal is one that is probably more believable, in terms of appearance, than that of Jennifer Connelly, who let’s face it didn’t really look like she would actually be a scientist.

The story for “The Incredible Hulk” was written by Zak Penn (“X-Men: The Last Stand”) and co-written (although not credited) by Edward Norton. This adaptation of the Hulk was much more faithful to the comics that inspired it, no doubt influenced by the fact that Marvel itself was financing the picture. Unlike its predecessor, “The Incredible Hulk” opted for a much more streamlined approach to the origin story, something that other comic book adaptations could take to heart. What took Ang Lee two hours or more to create, this script accomplished in a much more concise, and altogether clearer manner. Gone is all the psycho-babble, daddy issues of “Hulk”, and in their place we have a crystal clear storyline, full of character-driven drama that is both gripping and intriguing, loaded with action and spectacle, plus a flawed hero that is much more believable and charismatic than anything the former could muster. On every single level “The Incredible Hulk” delivers a top-notch story that comic book fans have always hoped for, and all their loyalty and patience has been brilliantly rewarded.

Directing this latest adaptation we have action director Louis Letterier (“Unleashed”). For Ang Lee’s vision of the Hulk’s story, we were treated to some very stylistic, yet questionable choices about the editing and look of the overall film. Louis Letterier wisely chose to avoid over-stylizing the movie, opting for more of a down-and-dirty action film that felt much grittier and even realistic (which is an odd thing to say when discussing a movie that’s subject is a giant green monster). Truly the only stylized element Letterier brought to the film, in my opinion, were his trademark fast-paced, quick cut action scenes that are designed to heighten the intensity of the moment even more than what the story was doing on its own. It’s a gimmick used by many filmmakers today to assist in creating even more powerful action-heavy sequences, and it is probably one that is used far too often as a crutch more than anything else. However, Letterier has mastered the art of the quick cut, and deftly uses it to his advantage in every film he directs, and “The Incredible Hulk” is no exception.

Finally, the visual effects for this incarnation of Hulk is leaps and bounds above anything featured in Ang Lee’s version (this should be the last comparison to that film). The talented people at Rhythm and Hues were responsible for creating the surprisingly lifelike CGI creations of Hulk and Abomination. Truthfully, making an audience believe that a giant green monster is actually present amongst humans cannot be an easy endeavor; however, the stunning visual effects work done in this film (similar to what was done for “King Kong”) is as close to creating a realistic human-esque monster as we can probably get (at least for a little while). Out of all the CGI-intensive films released in 2008, “The Incredible Hulk” boasted the very best the industry had to offer, and it was a shame that the film and its creative geniuses weren’t recognized for it this last award season.

“The Incredible Hulk” is a fast-moving, intense action film that boasts some of the most impressive visuals you will see in a film for quite some time. This movie effectively recreates the film version of the character to be more inline with his comic book counterpart, becoming the definitive Hulk for audiences to enjoy watching for years to come.

“The Incredible Hulk” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

Taken

Who would have ever thought that Hollywood would attempt to include an important topic to serve as the basis for one of its typically generic, yet entertaining action films? Generally these films are created to provide mindless escapism along with a hefty dose of guns and fist-fights, or just to be another brainless vehicle showcasing the action star of the moment. In the case of “Taken”, a much more serious topic, the trafficking of women, serves as the catalyst for all the mayhem that ensues over the course of the film.

“Taken” is the story of a young girl named Kim (Maggie Grace), who takes a trip to France with a friend for the summer; however, what should have been a trip filled with good times and fond memories, turns horribly wrong when they are kidnapped for the sole purpose of being sold into a dark underworld of sex and drugs. What the kidnappers didn’t count on was that Kim’s father, Bryan (Liam Neeson), is a man of rather “special” talents that he learned during his time spent working as a spy for the United States government. With his daughter’s life in jeopardy, Bryan must call upon every deadly skill he’s ever learned to track down those responsible and save his daughter before it’s too late.

Filmmaker and writer Luc Besson (“Transporter” series) has made a career out of delivering to audiences bone crushing, overly stylized and over-the-top action movies that entertain us, but don’t really give us anything new in terms of story or emotional range. With “Taken” Luc Besson, along with co-writer Robert Mark Kamen (“Transporter 2”), imbues the story with a much more serious, emotionally charged backbone. The seedy underworld of kidnapping and trafficking women for sex is one that exists without a whole lot of attention being called to it, thus making this film’s message all the more important. The story is wisely written in such a way that it gives us just enough of a glimpse into this world that we become more enlightened as too some of the new threats out there, but not so graphic that the film is too shocking for most people to see. By handling the subject matter in this somewhat delicate manner, some would say it just glossed over the evil done in this so-called “business”, but the message is able to reach a much broader spectrum of people than a harder edged movie would have been able to. For those feeling that the film didn’t do enough to expose the despicable nature of this world, I do agree, but I understand why it was a better decision not to go too far with it. Because to go too hard and gritty with this movie by being too explicit, you run the risk of limiting and/or alienating your audience, which is not something you want when dealing with such a serious topic.

Even with the much heftier subject matter, “Taken” still could have run the risk of being just a slightly above average action movie if not for the considerable talents of star Liam Neeson. Liam brings to the character of Bryan a gentleness and an obvious love for his daughter in the early portion of the movie, so that when the rubber really hits the road, the actions he takes to find her, and the ferocity in which he acts is completely believable. Regardless of how brutal Bryan may act towards these undeniably deserving adversaries, he never becomes inaccessible to the audience. This is because Liam’s gravitas and at times emotional performance keeps the audience invested in his character and his mission. Sometimes in an action movie, the action can become too front and center that the how’s and why’s of the story (no matter how important and central they may be to the action) get forgotten about until the very end when they are conveniently re-introduced to the audience as a reminder. For “Taken” this is not the case, as Bryan’s love for his daughter and unwillingness to give up on finding her always remains front and center, even during the action sequences.

Other members of the cast included Famke Janssen (“X-Men” trilogy), Maggie Grace (“The Fog”), and Leland Orser (“The Bone Collector”). Each of these supporting actors and actresses do a good job with the little time they do receive onscreen. Primarily this movie belongs solely to Liam Neeson, while the supporting roles are nothing more than glorified cameos, which suits this type of film perfectly. Out of the supporting cast, Maggie Grace probably gives the best performance, because had it not been for her emotional connection with Liam in the film’s early scenes, the audience wouldn’t have been able to connect with him as much later on. Sure, the story would have still impacted us in some way, but by having their relationship feel so realistic, it made our connection to him throughout the remainder of the film all the more palpable.

Lastly, first time director Pierre Morel brings his keen eye for action to the proceedings with great effectiveness. Pierre’s work as Director of Cinematography on the action film “War”, starring Jet Li and Jason Statham, clearly served as great preparation for his work on this film. While I didn’t enjoy the aforementioned film all that much, the action scenes were handled very well, much the same way as they are here. Unlike many of writer Luc Besson’s action films, “Taken” contains none of his trademark over-the-top, overblown action sequences that while incredibly fun to watch, are completely unbelievable. Instead, Pierre opts to keep the action realistic and up-close and personal, while still providing plenty of hard-hitting, fast-paced (somewhat stylized) fight sequences, that don’t really feel all that unbelievable or obviously choreographed.

“Taken” is a great action film that offers plenty of violence for the action junkies, while at the same time providing some solid acting, and a story that shines a light on a dark world that needs to be exposed and put to an end.

“Taken” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief sensuality.

Iron Man

Several years ago when rumors really began heating up about the possibility of an actual Iron Man movie coming to the big screen, I thought that there would be no way it would really work. Sure, comic book movies were on the rise, and director Sam Raimi had shown to us that a man really can web-sling and wall-crawl, and Bryan Singer proved that super-powered mutants do exist; however, a man in a metal suit flying around still seemed like an awfully daunting task to make us believe. Now, these weren’t the first rumors of an Iron Man movie coming to the big screen, they were just the most credible. No, rumors of this project have existed since around 1990, when it was being bounced from studio to studio. Even some Hollywood A-listers, such as Nicolas Cage and Tom Cruise, were being tossed around as possible stars for the vehicle, and director Quentin Tarentino was one of the primary contenders for the directing job (who knows what the movie would have ended up like if any of this had actually come true). However, none of that ever came close to fruition, and the project lay dormant for almost 20 years. That was until director Jon Favreau and star Robert Downey, Jr. made the movie into an incredible reality that took the 2008 summer box office by storm.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a rich, powerful, and undeniably brilliant weapons manufacturer, womanizer, and self-centered man who lives the life so many dream of. But that all changes when he finds himself captured by a terrorist organization who want to use him to create weapons solely for their own evil purposes. With his options limited, Stark does the one thing no one ever expected him to do, he becomes a hero. Clad in a metallic suit of his own design, Tony finally knows what his purpose is in life, and as the hero known as “Iron Man” he now has the means by which to protect the people he once put in harm’s way.

Truth be told, the long wait between those first rumors in the 90’s to now, was probably just what the movie needed to become a true success, for several reasons. For starters, the technology necessary to create the obligatory visual effects sequences (of which there are many) involving the metal-clad hero have finally become available, as proven by the smash hit “Transformers”. Prior to that film I don’t believe some of the visuals achieved in this movie would have been nearly as convincing to audiences. Second, the perfect casting choice was made in the form of Robert Downey, Jr., a talented actor who has had his fair share of troubles (many of which are surprisingly similar to Tony Stark’s in the comic books), and one whose star power wasn’t great enough that his private life would outshine anything done on the screen. Lastly, Marvel was finally able to create their own movie studio, allowing them full creative control and ensuring that the character and story were as true to the source material as possible. It’s for all these reasons listed here, and even some that aren’t, that “Iron Man” became such a successful adaptation, and had the film come to fruition sooner, who knows what the outcome would have been.

The story for “Iron Man” is two-fold: on one hand the story is a tale of redemption for a man who has lived a life of self-indulgence and freedom from any sort of consequences to his actions; while on the other, it is a fairly faithful to the source material origin story of a new kind of superhero that was born out of one man’s sheer will-power to live. As a moviegoer and comic book aficionado I love when an adaptation of one of my heroes comes to life on the big screen as both a faithful representation (or as close as one can get to decades of comic history in only a couple of hours), as well as a really strong film that isn’t just a bunch of summer popcorn movie fluff.

The screenplay written by the writing teams of Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby (“Children of Men”) and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (“Punisher: War Zone”) was surprisingly cohesive given the number of hands stirring the pot, so to speak. Generally, when the number of writers goes beyond two, the chances for the film actually working out all that well dwindle significantly; however, “Iron Man” proved to be one of those rare exceptions to the rule. Filled with plenty of humor, action, drama, and a dash of romance, the story for “Iron Man” is easily one of the best origin adaptations for a superhero that I have ever seen in a movie.

As great as the story was, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a few of the minor problems that crept into the film. These problems aren’t in any way overtly distracting from the end result, but they should be addressed all the same. First, from a purely comic geek standpoint the film’s location was completely wrong, Stark is based out of New York City (as are most of Marvel’s heroes), yet the film takes place predominantly in California. Personally, this alteration to the origin didn’t actually bother me, but I know it did some purists, and I can understand why. Second, the attempted twist involving the film’s villain was poorly executed, and was easily seen from the very beginning; however, I don’t believe the intent was to actually make the primary villain’s reveal all that much of a shocker. But there was obviously some attempt made to surprise the audience, and if it actually succeeded it would only be for those not paying close attention. This problem wasn’t like the first, where I didn’t really care either way, because it did kind of frustrate me that more effort wasn’t put into this twist to make it somewhat surprising. Like I said, in the end these problems weren’t anything major, but they still existed nonetheless.

For this film, fledgling Marvel Studios wisely chose to sort of buck the Hollywood system by going with some truly surprising, yet inspired choices for both cast and crew. Choosing Jon Favreau (“Elf”) as the director was a shock to many, and even caused some to wonder just how good this film could actually be. Sure, Favreau proved he could handle family comedy with “Elf”, and some of his early work is fairly dramatic, and as far as visual effects goes, he did a decent enough job on “Zathura”; yet, would he have what it takes to tackle something as big as a comic book icon’s first major film adaptation? Apparently, the answer was yes, and any questioning of the decision was quickly silenced when Favreau debuted some footage during Comic-Con, much to the vast delight of many a comic geek. The other shocking choice, and arguably the most disputed was that of casting troubled actor Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Even though he hardly seemed the proper fit for the character, Robert perfectly captured the very nature of Tony Stark right down to his physical appearance, quick-wit, and attitude, for all intents and purposes Downey, Jr. was Tony Stark through and through.

Comprising the supporting cast of characters, were a group of talented actors and actresses whose hiring weren’t nearly as scrutinized. Gwyneth Paltrow (“Shakespeare in Love”), although not my first choice for the role, turned out to be the perfect Pepper Potts, Tony Stark’s personal assistant. It was a decidedly different role for Gwyneth who typically does more dramatic work, and even more surprising, while at the same time a very smart move on her part, was that this was the role she chose as her first project post-pregnancy hiatus. Joining her was Jeff Bridges (“Arlington Road”) as Obadiah Stane, Tony’s mentor and right-hand man in operating the day-to-day activities of Stark Industries. For fans of Jeff’s work, many will be surprised by how different he looks as this character, with his shaved head and full beard, Jeff is almost unrecognizable from his appearances in virtually every other movie he’s ever made. Rounding out the main supporting cast members is Terrence Howard (“Four Brothers”) as James “Rhodey” Rhodes, an Air Force pilot, and close friend to Tony Stark. Terrence was again another terrific choice, and he really played well off of anything Robert Downey, Jr. would throw at him. Their typically light-hearted conversations full of playfully intended put-downs and sarcasm really helped to solidify their close, almost brotherly bond the two men share with one another. All in all, the casting for this film, whether heavily questioned or just unquestionably accepted, couldn’t have been any better as each of the cast members delivered top-notch performances.

“Iron Man” was one of 2008’s biggest blockbusters, second only to “The Dark Knight”, and the film rightfully earns its place amongst the best comic book adaptations ever made. Boasting a strong story, visually stunning special effects, brilliant casting decisions, and just some good old fashioned fun, “Iron Man” is not just a comic book blockbuster, but a great movie that audiences will enjoy over and over again. By the way, be sure to watch after the credits for a bonus scene that offers a hint of things to come.

“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and brief sensuality.

007: Quantum of Solace

After witnessing the complete rebirth of the James Bond franchise at the hands of Martin Campbell’s superbly crafted thrill-ride, “Casino Royale”; I looked forward with great anticipation for this year’s follow-up “Quantum of Solace”. Just like its predecessor, Daniel Craig once again portrays the famed Agent 007, alongside the always reliable Judi Dench as M; and continuing the basis of a more realistic James Bond there are still no gadgets to speak of, and James survives purely on his quick wit and fast-flying fists. So, does “Quantum of Solace” have what it takes to rival the film that came before it, or has this reinvigorated franchise already lost its momentum?

Beginning shortly after the events of “Casino Royale”, James Bond (Daniel Craig) finds himself trying to quell the thirst for vengeance that is raging deep inside. With his one-time love, Vesper, now dead, James is using his resources within MI-6 to track down those responsible for her betrayal and ultimate death. As James searches desperately for answers, he stumbles upon a powerful threat that has been spreading right underneath MI-6’s very nose; that of a mysterious group known as Quantum, led by a power hungry man named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). With M’s trust in him waning, James must work alongside a mysterious young woman (Olga Kurylenko) to uncover what Quantum is all about and how significant of a threat they truly are before it is too late.

As the 22nd official James Bond movie in the franchises long lasting history, some could pose the question, “Is there any possible new ground to cover with this enduring character?” My answer would be… apparently so, because after watching “Quantum of Solace”, there is more to this newest incarnation of James Bond than what we’ve been accustomed to over the last 40 some years.

The story for “Quantum of Solace”, as written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade (the same team of writers that collaborated on the previous film “Casino Royale”), delivers to audiences a side of James Bond we have never truly seen unleashed before. What I am referring to is James’ unbridled thirst for revenge. This facet of James’ character pushed an already tougher, more brutal James Bond into even more violent territory, and even introduced the notion that perhaps 007 was going too far in performing his sworn duties. A truly interesting, and fresh approach to the character that perfectly coincides with the new direction this series is taking.

Along with a more violent James Bond, the introduction of a criminal organization such as Quantum was a very welcome surprise for me, as this may allow for the Bond franchise to begin linking its films together again to some degree, rather than having them be merely episodic in nature. Now, this is not to say that I want them to begin leaving massive cliffhangers at the ends of their movies (such as, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” or “The Matrix Reloaded”), so that another film can come along and tie up all the loose ends. Not by any means. I just like the fact that we have this organization that could perhaps be used as a means of linking the villains Bond must face together; similar to the way the classic Bond movies used Blofeld (leader of the group known as SPECTRE) as the villain or at least backing the villain in many of the films. This wouldn’t necessarily require audiences to see every James Bond movie that gets made in order to understand what’s going on, in fact that would be detrimental to this franchises continued success (in my opinion); but this addition could be seen as a reward of sorts for those that have stuck with the franchise by providing a sense of continuity and a richer universe in which the character they love resides.

Some critics have panned this film for being too focused on Bond’s need for revenge and that this incarnation of Bond is nowhere near as fun as his predecessors. They wonder where are all the gadgets, the quick quips, the double entendres, and so on and so forth. Personally, I think all of their complaints are ridiculous, and contradict the very reasons they cited for loving “Casino Royale” because it was more realistic in nature. I think the idea of having a more realistic James Bond than those that came before is exactly what this franchise needs to stay relevant in today’s popular culture. When franchises such as the “Jason Bourne” series focuses on a seemingly real-life spy, the more outlandish that James Bond films become, the less audiences would relate to him; therefore the less appealing he would be as a character to the point that eventually he would just fade away in the shadow of a man with his same initials (Jason Bourne, for those not paying attention). If you are one of the people that enjoyed all the quick quips, gadgets, and sexual innuendos of the past, then you have 20 movies with which to fill your quota; and I admit I enjoy those kinds of James Bond films as well, but you have to face facts, that kind of 007 movie appears to be a thing of the past, and the realism of “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” is the future for this franchise.

The actors in “Quantum of Solace” all deliver terrific performances, a standard that has existed in every James Bond film that I have ever seen, and I’m sure was present even in the ones I haven’t. Daniel Craig continues to prove himself to be the best Agent 007 in my opinion, no disrespect to Sean Connery, but Craig’s version of Bond is how the character was meant to be. I thought Daniel did an excellent job of handling this even more aggressive Bond, as he accurately portrayed a man broken by his deep loss and guilt, and driven to payback those responsible. Judi Dench gives another perfect performance as the always proper, yet in your face M. Her loyalty to James, although it appears somewhat shaky at times in this film, and in all her other appearances even before this reboot, ultimately remains unwavering in the end. She tends to provide the calm sanity amidst the storm of Bond’s typically chaotic methods of achieving his goals.

Also returning to the series are Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright (both appeared in “Casino Royale”). I appreciated that both of these actors returned to reprise their roles from the previous film, even if they weren’t featured all that heavily in this one; it is this sort of continuity that I enjoy in a film series. Joining the cast are foreign actors, Mathieu Amalric (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”) as the apparent leader of Quantum, Dominic Greene, and Olga Kurylenko (“Hitman”), as the newest Bond girl, Camille. I for one have not seen anything Mathieu has done, but from what I can tell he appears to be a very good actor and his performance here was nothing short of menacing much of the time. His villain fit in perfectly with the new direction this franchise has taken, as he was a very believable villain given the means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals, and the methods he employs in doing so are realistic, and at times shocking. Olga Kurylenko surprised me with her performance, because based on her previous film, the video game adaptation “Hitman”, I wasn’t all that impressed by her acting prowess. However, any doubts I had about her talents, have been laid to rest, and like Vesper before her; Olga’s character of Camille is from a very different mold than those other Bond girls in the previous 20 films.

After “Casino Royale” I didn’t know if another James Bond movie could do any better. While I don’t believe director Marc Forster’s (“Monster’s Ball”) “Quantum of Solace” achieved the goal of toppling “Casino Royale” as the best Bond movie ever; regardless of what some of the critics may say, Marc did manage to provide a thoroughly engrossing follow-up film that does live up to its predecessor, and left me once again, anxiously awaiting the next installment.

In case you are curious, I mentioned earlier that there are 22 official James Bond movies; although to be truthful, this is not entirely accurate. There are technically 23 James Bond movies; however, Sean Connery’s last portrayal of the character in 1983’s “Never Say Never Again” is not recognized in the official Bond canon, as it is essentially a remake of “Thunderball”.

“Quantum of Solace” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and sensuality.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

After preventing the Nazis from gaining control of the all-powerful Ark of the Covenant, and freeing slave children from an oppressive cult, Indiana Jones is back once again for yet another thrilling adventure. Series star Harrison Ford returns as the title character, along with John Rhys-Davies reprising his role of Sallah from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and new to the series we have the original James Bond himself, Sean Connery (“007: Goldfinger”) as Indy’s long lost archaeologist father. With two highly successful films already established in the series, the third one would no doubt enthrall fans to some degree, but would the quality of the first two films remain intact all the way through the third; or has Indiana Jones finally met his match?

Upon receiving disturbing news that his father, Professor Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery) has gone missing while on his lifelong quest to discover the Holy Grail; Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) embarks upon a search to save his estranged father from the clutches of some familiar enemies… the Nazis. Assisted by his loyal friends Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) and Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), Indy will do everything within his power to save his father, stop the Nazis once again, and maybe even discover the resting place of the mystical Holy Grail in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.

After the success of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, I’m somewhat surprised, when looking back, by the five year gap between the second and third movies. Especially when in numerous interviews, director Steven Spielberg has stated that he felt that “Temple of Doom” was kind of a letdown to audiences and was far too dark of a picture, and that he wanted to make another adventure to sort of redeem the character and himself. I guess one could make the argument that by not rushing into a third film, Spielberg and co-creator/producer George Lucas could avoid making another movie that would be viewed as a disappointment in at least their eyes, and perhaps even in the eyes of fans and critics. I just thought Spielberg would have pushed for a little faster turnaround in regards to the supposed redemption of the series; instead of waiting five years to do so, but that’s me and I’m not in charge.

Apparently throughout the five year lull between sequels, both Spielberg and Lucas, along with writer Jeffrey Boam (“Lethal Weapon 2”), took advantage of the time and were able to create what I believe to be the absolute best Indiana Jones adventure yet. The concept of linking the quest for the Holy Grail to Indy’s quest to prove himself to his father was a very strong backbone with which to base this newest adventure. This approach allowed for some really interesting, and at times incredibly fun, moments within the film for the actors, and the team behind the camera, to mine for cinematic gold.

One of the major strong points this film has working in its favor is the smartly written banter between Indy and his father, with both of them constantly trying to get the last word in on any topic. Plus, it’s intriguing to see that everything Indiana has done, his father has most likely done, and in his own opinion, has done it better; so for Indy, we get a sense that he feels as if he’s constantly living in his father’s shadow, which becomes a major source of contention for the father/son duo. I also enjoyed the return of the Nazis as a villain for the series, the Thuggee cult in the second film was good, but the Nazis were a much more lethal threat, and given the time in which the films are set, they seemed an appropriate choice for Indy to tackle. Lastly, the tease at the beginning of the film that introduced us to a young, inexperienced Indiana Jones was very refreshing, and provided some neat bits of exposition regarding Indy’s fear of snakes, his code of honor in regards to tomb raiding, and even went so far as to explain the scar on his chin. All of these little moments early on in the film, coupled with several more that were sprinkled throughout, just added to the overall enjoyment I had with this movie experience.

Harrison Ford really surprised me by his ability to bring even more depth to a character that he’s already played twice. With this being the third time Harrison played this role, I would have thought that he had done all he could with this character, and if his father hadn’t been introduced into the series, then perhaps there would have been no new ground to cover. Thanks to that addition, Harrison was given some new areas of Indy’s life and personality to explore, allowing for the character to not only remain fresh for him, but also for the audience that has followed him throughout all his adventures. Just to clarify, even if Harrison was unable to really cover any new ground with the character; that would have been fine too, so long as this movie was to be intended as the final chapter in the character’s franchise. Because once a character quits growing/evolving, the audience will quickly lose interest, due to it being more of the same old thing, and the actor playing the part will most likely feel the exact same way; therefore resulting in a sub-par performance and inferior sequel.

Joining Harrison Ford on his quest we find a few familiar faces, such as John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, Indiana’s trusted ally in Cairo. I was pleased to see Sallah’s return to the series, after feeling like there was much more that could have been done with the character in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Also returning was actor Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody, Indy’s close friend and associate; actually he seems more like a manager when it comes to his various archaeological adventures, but let’s not split hairs. Joining the cast is screen legend Sean Connery, who brings Indy’s father to life in all his cantankerous, scene chewing glory. As terrific as the dynamic between father and son proved to be in this film, Sean never ceased to steal every scene he was in, even when Harrison was at the top of his game matching Sean quip for quip. As great as Sean was in the role, one thing did bug me about his casting. Although he did attempt to hide it, his accent was still apparent in several scenes. Yet for some reason, no one ever made note of it. I guess we were just supposed to ignore it, but I for one would have liked some form of explanation for why he has an accent that his son clearly has no hint of. This doesn’t seem like too far-fetched of a request, especially when the writer was going so far as to explain why Indy has a scar on his chin and even where he got the nickname Indiana from in the first place. Maybe I’m the only one that’s had this thought; and if so, I guess that’s fine, but it just struck me as odd was all.

If director Steven Spielberg was hoping to redeem himself with “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”, for what he felt was a failure with his previous effort in the series; then, I would have to say he has succeeded brilliantly. I agree that the darker tone of “Temple of Doom” did feel different from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I also felt that it was a natural progression for the character and the series (generally the middle chapter is the darkest); that being said, I was happy that this movie was more in line with the tone of the original film. Even though the tone for this movie was similar to that of the first, there is one major difference between this film and its predecessors; this one seemed like it was done much better, and felt more polished than either of the previous two ever came close to being.

Overall, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” is a great sequel, and for me, it is the best the series has ever been. Loaded with great storytelling, terrific acting, some truly touching moments, and even some hilarious ones, this is one movie that is definitely worth watching.

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

The Terminator

With the new television season in full swing I find myself bombarded with a plethora of new shows vying for my attention, few will actually succeed in gaining it in the end; however, as many new shows try to become new favorites of mine, I still remain loyal to the ones I’ve enjoyed from previous seasons. One such show that became a favorite of mine last season was the Fox network’s mid-season replacement “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”. Now that the new season of this show has gone on for a few episodes, I recently found myself wanting to re-watch the original movies that spawned this entertaining weekly sci-fi series. So, I got out my Blu-ray copies of the Terminator trilogy and had myself a thrilling, action-packed, sci-fi weekend of machines bent on destroying humanity.

“The Terminator” is set in the year 1984 where a young woman named Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is trying to make a life for herself; however, that life may soon be cut short as a deadly cyborg, called a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), arrives from the future to kill her. As it turns out, Sarah is to eventually give birth to a boy who will one day grow up to become humanity’s last great hope for survival against the onslaught of these seemingly unstoppable killing machines. Now, Sarah is in a desperate struggle for survival for not only her own life and that of her unborn child, but also for the future of all mankind.

Science-fiction movies when done well can be extremely entertaining pieces of cinema that on occasion become important facets of our popular culture. Prior to 1984, the Star Wars and Star Trek movies were the two biggest science-fiction franchises ever to be made. That is, until a little known director named James Cameron released a movie starring a former Austrian body builder that would become the first true blockbuster for both men’s careers, and cement Arnold Schwarzenegger as a cinematic icon, causing his character to become one of the most quoted and recognizable characters of all time.

The story for “The Terminator” is a blend of both present day (well, back when 1984 was present day) reality with that of a dark, bleak future where humanity’s days could very well be numbered. The concept of having a cybernetic killer come back from the future to end the life of an innocent woman and her as yet unborn child was an intriguing one. It was made even more intriguing by the introduction of her protector (Michael Biehn) who was sent back in time by Sarah’s very own son to protect his mother and prevent the Terminator from succeeding in its mission. Talk about a mind-bending storyline. An interesting element within this movie is that the future may not be set in stone, which introduces some really interesting consequences into the story depending on what happens; therefore making the movie feel a bit more unpredictable and original than one might expect from the genre. It was nice to see that even back in 1984, long before the recent crop of sci-fi/superhero films set against a realistic, modern day backdrop, writer/director James Cameron was smart enough to create a fairly realistic world for his characters and his far fetched idea (although it doesn’t seem nearly as far fetched with today’s technology) to exist within. Thus, allowing us in the audience an easier time of relating to these characters who find themselves in this bizarre situation.

Leading the cast for “The Terminator” we have Arnold Schwarzenegger, who found great success as one of Hollywood’s new action heroes in films such as, “Predator”, “Commando”, and “Total Recall”, and all of it was due to his star making performance in this movie. The fact that Arnold became such a big star from this movie is actually somewhat surprising to me given the fact that he barely speaks in his role, shows zero emotional range (which is appropriate given that his character is a cyborg), and isn’t exactly challenged in a physical way either. Regardless of all of this, Arnold still managed to create a villain that instills fear by being this ultimate killing machine, not to mention the eerie way in which he systematically scans a room is perfectly robotic and creepy at the same time. All the while you’ll find yourself wondering is this possibly the future of our machines with the way A.I. is becoming more and more advanced these days. Just a little bit strange to think about, isn’t it.

The supporting cast led by Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn was surprisingly solid, providing intriguing characters that were easily accessible, allowing for us to quickly begin rooting for their survival and ultimate success against the onslaught of the Terminator. Linda Hamilton (“Dante’s Peak”) was given the most to do out of everyone within the cast. Over the course of this movie we see her character run through a wide range of emotions; from happiness to fear, from fear to surprising romantic bliss to an eventual undeterred resolve. Linda proved in this movie that she was definitely star material, by creating such a three-dimensional character that began the movie as a virtual nobody and ended it poised to become this virtual warrior-like woman determined to raise her son to be the one man that could save humankind from extinction. Along with Linda, actor Michael Biehn (“Aliens”) created a very human, yet at times almost superhuman hero in Sarah’s protector, Kyle Reese. His devotion to not only his mission, but also to Sarah, was a nice twist to the character, because it made him into a much more realistic hero. Normally in movies like this the hero is one that knows exactly what to do in every situation, and nine times out of ten Kyle was very much like that, but there were those moments where he clearly was flying by the seat of his pants, and just hoping for some miracle to occur to save both him and Sarah from the machine hunting them; it was this very human aspect to his heroic character that made him stand out more than what your typical action hero would have in any other movie.

Lastly, writer/director James Cameron did an excellent job of creating a visually thrilling science fiction experience with a significantly smaller budget than anything produced in movies or television today, and yet still his visuals hold up better than most from that time. That is as much to do with the excellent work on behalf of James Cameron and his crew as it is with the talented people working with Stan Winston to create the stunning, yet sometimes frightening images of a future where machines rule over the humans with an iron fist. Granted there are moments within the film where it definitely shows its age, and the practical and visual effects definitely look dated; however, given the time at which the film was made the results are still impressive even by today’s standards if you really stop to think about it. It would be nice (and I’m sure purists will disagree with me on this) if some of the weaker moments in the visual effects area could be tweaked/redone similar to what George Lucas did to his original Star Wars trilogy. I’m not saying to tweak the effects to the extent that George did, but there are definitely places where if an improvement could be made the movie would definitely benefit from it, and would feel more in line with the technological advancements made in between this first movie and its sequels.

Overall, “The Terminator” is an excellent science fiction thrill ride that grabs you early on, and only occasionally slows down long enough for you to catch your breath before quickly rushing forward once more. With an outstanding story, a surprising cast, and mostly solid visual effects work, this is a movie that kicked off one of the greatest sci-fi movie series’ of all time, and should definitely be on everyone’s must see list!

“The Terminator” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Batman

The story of the hero known as Batman is one that many people are familiar with to some degree. As a comic book character created by Bob Kane for DC Comics, Batman has remained one of the most popular heroes throughout the years, and the same can be said, for the most part, for all of his various incarnations in both the comics and other forms of media. In the 1960’s the Caped Crusader was adapted into a weekly television series, starring Adam West (Bruce Wayne/Batman) and Burt Ward (Dick Grayson/Robin). The problem with this series, in my opinion, was that it chose to make a comedy out of Batman, everything about this series just screamed camp! I’ll admit I have watched some of the episodes, along with the movie that was released around the same time, and for some reason I actually found myself unable to look away. The only conclusion I could come up with was that the series was the equivalent of a train wreck; you know the results are going to be disastrous, yet you can’t bring yourself to look away. Sure the series was a hit, but I challenge any fan of the series to go back now, and actually watch it and see if you truly feel that it did any sort of justice to the character of Batman. Anyway, I digress, the series eventually ended; however, that would not be the end of Batman’s life on television. He would later appear in animated form on the kid-friendly “Super Friends” show, which was basically the Justice League superhero team without the name. After a few seasons on the air, “Super Friends” ended, and once again Batman was left to only appear in the comics.

Then in 1989, Warner Brothers released what would become the first of four feature films that would comprise the original Batman film franchise. In this incarnation the character appeared to be getting the treatment he rightfully deserved, gone was the camp and stupidity of the 1960’s, and in was a darker, brooding, and vengeful billionaire version of Bruce Wayne who prowls the rooftops of Gotham City in the guise of Batman

“Batman” focuses on the Batman’s (Michael Keaton) initial appearances in and around Gotham City, stopping crime whenever and wherever he finds it. For many, he is nothing more than a myth supposedly lurking in the shadows, created in an effort to deter the criminal element that plagues the city. However, when a maniacal menace by the name of Joker (Jack Nicholson) begins terrorizing Gotham, Batman is forced to come out from the shadows to confront this madman before his city is plunged into madness.

After the popularity of the 60’s TV series, Tim Burton’s dark vision of Batman was exactly what was needed to turn the Dark Knight back into the vengeful hero he was meant to be. Burton was wise enough to create a version of Batman that was dramatically strong, yet remained true enough to the hero’s legendary origins, while still adding a few tweaks for artistic license, that he was able to present a movie that would please the fanboys (and girls), and also gain great critical acclaim and commercial success. The approach of the story was different from most superhero movies of today, because here Bruce Wayne has already become Batman, and we are given his origin through a series of flashbacks. Taking the place of the traditional hero origin was the origin of the film’s villain, the Joker. Generally in superhero films both origins tend to be presented simultaneously, or at least in quick succession of each other; however, the change to that method worked out well, and I believe the film’s success when it was released, and its continued popularity today, is partially due to that somewhat unconventional approach to the storytelling. The overall story in “Batman” was very well-paced, and generally balanced in regards to the main characters. I did feel that at times perhaps Joker was getting way too much focus, and that Batman/Bruce Wayne was getting pushed aside a bit (this was possibly due to Jack Nicholson’s much broader appeal and star power over that of Michael Keaton). Vicki Vale was fleshed out a little in the story, although she never manages to become much more than the token girlfriend for Bruce Wayne in this movie, not that this is all that surprising. The action worked well within the film, never feeling forced into the proceedings to provide the obligatory fight sequences for a comic book or action movie. Basically, all of the story elements within “Batman” worked perfectly with each other to create a very entertaining movie, and beloved comic book adaptation, and at the time, it could have been viewed as a “How To” guide for making a successful superhero movie.

The cast was led by Michael Keaton, who was a source of much contention amongst fans at the time of his casting; because at that time all he had really been known for were comedic roles, and his most recent had been the title role in Tim Burton’s “Beetlejuice”. However, once trailers for the movie started appearing on TV and in movie theaters, and then the eventual release of the movie, the fans soon began supporting Michael’s portrayal, and to this day he still remains the fan favorite for many Bat-fans. Michael brought a very serious minded approach to the character of Bruce Wayne, playing him as being somewhat uncomfortable in his billionaire role, and much more at ease in the part of Batman. He also was the first to give the two characters very distinct voices to differentiate from one another, a choice that has stuck with the character throughout all of his movie incarnations since then (well, except for “Batman & Robin”, George Clooney never left ‘George Clooney’ mode). Jack Nicholson (“The Bucket List”) was the perfect choice for Joker, and at the time was the iconic version of the character that all other versions would be judged by; however, the late Heath Ledger has dethroned Nicholson with his recent portrayal of a much more menacing version of Joker in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. Jack brought a dark sense of humor and violent disposition to the character, aspects of the Joker that hadn’t been seen before except in the comic books, mixed with a little bit of wackiness, although not so much that it became cartoonish or distracting from the movie or his performance. Rounding out the main cast was Kim Basinger (“Cellular”) as Vicki Vale, her character as I stated earlier, was essentially nothing more than eye candy and a love interest for Bruce Wayne. There were a few moments where Kim was surprisingly given some important scenes in the script, therefore adding some depth to her character and her relationship with Bruce, but otherwise she was nothing more than the damsel-in-distress for the hero to save.

In the end, “Batman” was, and still is, an excellent superhero film adaptation, and at the time was responsible for resurrecting the seemingly dead comic book genre after the one-two punch of “Superman 3” and “Superman 4: The Quest for Peace” had killed it off. Boasting a very solid story that was approached seriously by all the cast and crew working on the film, Tim Burton’s “Batman” was the perfect weapon for successfully destroying the public’s misconception of Batman as being nothing more than a silly superhero for children that was the focal point of an extremely campy TV show.

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