X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Over the course of the “X-Men” trilogy there has been one constant story thread that has been touched upon, yet it’s never been fully explored. For those of you that have watched the series, then you most likely know exactly what I’m referring to… the origin of the most popular mutant of all, Logan/Wolverine. Finally, after three highly successful films chronicling the adventures of the X-Men team, 20th Century Fox has chosen to spin-off Wolverine into his own movie and potential franchise by providing his official origin story with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” presents many key events in Wolverine’s (Hugh Jackman) life prior to his fateful arrival at the X-Mansion in the original “X-Men” film. Beginning with his initial discovery as a youth that he possessed the ability to unsheathe claws from beneath his skin, to his complicated friendship and eventual hatred of his former best friend Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber), his time spent working for the government as part of an elite team of mutant trackers, and all of this culminating in a senses-shattering showdown that will leave no one unscathed.

The mystery behind Wolverine’s origin has been a long-standing plotline, not just in the film trilogy, but in the various comic books in which the character has appeared. In 2001, Marvel Comics began a six-issue limited series aptly titled “Origin” that would establish the official backstory for the berserker mutant once and for all. Obviously, so long as interest in the onscreen version of the character remained alive, it would only be a matter of time before his origin, or at least some semblance of it, made it to the big screen as well.

Many times with spin-offs, the story tends to be weaker than those utilized for the main franchise; however, this film appears to be one of those very rare exceptions where the quality actually remains intact. Written by David Benioff (“Troy”) and Skip Woods (“Swordfish”), with some elements loosely based upon the mini-series “Origin”, the story focuses upon some of the various influences, circumstances, and powerful outside forces that shaped Logan into becoming one of the most dangerous mutants on the face of the Earth.

The story spends ample time showcasing the extremely visceral nature of the film’s two primary characters, Wolverine and Sabretooth, and how they deal with their inner beasts in drastically different ways. Along with this complicated relationship, the film delves into the almost constant, yet subtle, manipulation that eventually led to Logan’s decision to participate in the excruciatingly painful Weapon X program, which bonded liquid Adamantium to his bones. It’s during these moments of manipulation, mostly at the hands of William Stryker (Danny Huston), that the film’s story really shines.

Another strong aspect of the film is the sharply written, and often times witty, dialogue. The interactions between the characters felt believable and completely natural within the scenes. Some spin-offs suffer from an over-abundance of clichés or merely recycled lines and moments from the original franchise on which they are based; however, “Wolverine” easily side-steps these issues in every respect. In the hands of less capable writers that didn’t feel some responsibility to keep the quality of the franchise intact, the dialogue, and the rest of the story for that matter, could have potentially gone the way of so many other spin-offs and failed miserably, thus hurting the main franchise in the process. As a fan of the series, I am very pleased by the fact that even though this is the fourth film in the franchise, the creative minds behind the series continually try to surpass what has come before.

For all you action fans out there do not worry. This series hasn’t lost sight of one of its key elements. Throughout the film’s story the action scenes never take a backseat to the drama unfolding within the characters’ lives. The fights are much more violent and at times graphic in comparison to the previous three films of the “X-Men” franchise; not to mention, even more up close and personal due to fewer mutants with projectile-like abilities. The decision to make the fights even more brutal worked very well alongside the animalistic overtones of the story; although it may have resulted in some parents not wishing their children to see the film, despite the fact that they may have seen the other three in the series.

Of course, what would a comic book movie be without the use of visual effects? Well, obviously it would be quite boring, but that almost goes without saying. For the most part, the CGI-intensive sequences were well executed; however, there were some surprising scenes in which the effects looked a bit shoddy. Oddly, enough these scenes involved the use of Wolverine’s claws, which by this point should have been mastered and no longer a cause for concern. I’m not sure what caused the problem, if it was a lack of texture on the CGI claws or what, but something was definitely off about them during a couple of scenes. Please note, that these are not pivotal scenes and that the problem was not all that detrimental to the end result of the movie, it’s just something that I found frustrating and thought honestly shouldn’t have occurred within the film. Otherwise, like I said, the visual effects were very good, and at times numerous sequences were truly awesome to watch and easily overshadowed any of the weaker moments in this area.

Lastly, the acting for the film, just as it was in the original three movies, remains consistently high throughout. Despite having played the role of Wolverine three times already, Hugh Jackman is still able to bring a fresh new approach to the character that is crucial to the continued success of the series. No doubt the ability for Jackman to convey such enthusiasm for the role was assisted by the fact that he was so passionate about finally getting to tell the official origin for this beloved comic book icon. Another neat aspect of the character that was explored a little further in this film than in the previous movies was Wolverine’s famed “Berserker Rage” (comic book fans know what I’m talking about). Although, we don’t necessarily get to see an all-out fully realized rage, we are given a much closer look at what he would be like if he succumbed to his unbridled fury, and it was obvious that Hugh enjoyed this new side to the character being explored.

Supporting Hugh are some extremely talented actors beginning with Liev Schreiber (“The Sum of All Fears”). Liev takes a role that was relatively wordless in the original film, and was tasked with creating a character that was dramatically rich, incredibly feral, and ultimately could become the nemesis to Wolverine we saw in the first movie. Not necessarily an easy job, but Liev pulled it off perfectly. He delivered a multi-layered villain that was a prime example of what Wolverine could have become if given a couple of different choices along the way, and Liev is clearly relishing every evil moment he gets onscreen. Next is actor Danny Huston (“30 Days of Night”) taking over the role of William Stryker from Brian Cox (“X2: X-Men United”). Danny played Stryker with the perfect blend of subtle manipulation and malice. At times he would be fatherly, especially towards Logan (albeit only to further his own agenda), but then he would snap and show his true colors by unveiling an obviously twisted, sadistic, and potentially unstable man who wanted nothing more than unlimited power to quell the surging mutant problem.

Rounding out the supporting cast is actor Ryan Reynolds (“The Proposal”) and singer turned actor Will.i.am (“Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”). I’ve become a fan of Ryan’s work over the last few years, and I enjoy his unfettered sarcasm that he seems to imbue into almost every single character he portrays, but never in a way that feels unnatural or tired within in the role, mind you. In this film, Ryan isn’t given all that much screen time, but what he does get he definitely makes the most of by making his character of Wade Wilson (comic book fans know him as the Merc with the Mouth, Deadpool) an enjoyable addition to the group of rogues that Stryker has assembled. Sadly, his role was intended as an introduction to the character in hopes of getting an eventual spin-off for him as well, a tactic that most likely worked given the film’s success; however, I for one wish there could have been a little more of the character in this story, not to mention fewer major tweaks to the character’s origin that don’t line-up with the comic books. But, I digress. Last, but not least, is Will.i.am as John Wraith, a mutant teleporter. Will shows that he definitely has potential, displaying some good comedic timing in a few scenes, and a natural charisma that makes for a more interesting character than I believe he would have been if played by another actor.

Directed by Gavin Hood (“Rendition”), “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is an incredibly fast-paced action film that delivers on all counts. Granted there are some gripes with the movie, but overall it’s a very solid addition to a terrific franchise. This is a must-see for fans of the original trilogy and a perfect jumping on point for newcomers to the series.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief nudity.

Halloween

Beginning in 1978 the landscape of cinema changed forever with the introduction of one knife-wielding, masked killer named Michael Myers. The film that introduced audiences to this man was the seminal horror classic “Halloween”. With this one movie director John Carpenter (“Escape from New York”) launched his directing career to new heights, and made Jamie Lee Curtis into a movie star (“True Lies”). Not to mention, the monster success of this low-budget horror thriller subsequently created an entire sub-genre of horror known as the slasher film.

“Halloween” centers on the sleepy little town of Haddonfield, Illinois. For most people, Haddonfield appears to be the most idyllic place to live; however, beneath the surface lays a deadly secret. Fifteen years ago, on Halloween night, a deranged young boy named Michael Myers murdered his older sister. Now, all these years later, Michael has escaped from a mental institution and is returning home to continue what he started so long ago.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I personally find it strange to refer to a horror film as a classic in any regard. Because for the most part, entries into this genre are some of the most forgettable movies ever committed to film no matter how many sequels they may generate. However, with “Halloween” John Carpenter created a movie that was more in the vein of a thriller than previous horror titles, resulting in a movie that still stands relatively unchallenged by its genre, even to this day. So, to say that this is a classic horror film, a feat that doesn’t seem that hard to achieve, is nothing short of the truth.

In my opinion, the key to why John Carpenter’s vision of that horror-filled October 31st remains so resonant with audiences is due to the way he used the camera to bring the viewer into the events. Unlike most modern horror films, well truthfully any horror film made since the release of “Halloween”, this one opts to not rely on buckets and buckets of blood and gore to freak out audiences. Instead, John took a much more innovative approach by imbuing the film with an atmosphere saturated with a foreboding sense of terror and dread; thus, keeping the viewers in an almost constant state of suspense from start to finish. In addition, Carpenter filmed many scenes with these slow-moving tracking shots that were designed to give the audience the unsettling viewpoint of virtually being in Michael Myers’ shoes as he methodically stalks his prey. If it weren’t for the ingenuity of John Carpenter on display while filming this movie, some of which may have been a result of the film’s tiny budget, “Halloween” would most likely not have been the often imitated and respected movie that it is today.

With all that being said, I don’t want to diminish the story’s impact on the film’s long-lasting appeal. Co-written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill (“Escape from L.A.”), the screenplay is a nearly perfect example of how a horror film, or thriller for that matter, should be paced to allow the tension within the story to naturally build from moment to moment until it reaches its maximum potential for the final act. Both Carpenter and Hill were smart enough to not rush the story to get to the scares quicker, an approach ignored by the majority of horror films released these days. By not rushing into the horror aspect, the screenplay takes some time in attempting to develop the characters, especially Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence).

Also, the story preys upon many people’s fear of the mysterious and unknown by taking the less is more approach to showing Michael on screen. This move was both bold and brilliant all at once, and again is a tactic ignored by modern day slasher films. By placing Michael predominantly in shadows, the story escalates the audience’s apprehension, because now, they aren’t even sure where he’s going to strike from next. To me, if I’m a horror director, this is one movie that I would study over and over, because it seems to be that this is the film by which all others are compared.

While the storyline played a very pivotal role in the success of this film, it is not without its share of problems. As a horror movie one must expect certain faults to be evident in the story; however, that still doesn’t excuse them from being noted either. For instance, the various characters in the movie are, for the most part, given very little to do other than potentially serve as fodder for Michael. Now this doesn’t apply to Jamie’s character or Donald Pleasence’s, both of theirs received numerous moments of development, and the movie benefits greatly from those times. But if your character doesn’t happen to be as important as either one of those two… Look out. Most likely you’ll end up appearing as little more than a horny teenager heading for a not-so pleasant demise at the business end of a knife.

Another area this movie suffers, to an extent, is in the dialogue, which seems like a common problem for many a horror movie. There are areas of the movie that are well-written and polished, but other times the characters sound as if their brains have been removed and they’re just making pointless, inane conversation. Although to be fair, some of the dialogue problems may have had more to do with the actor or actress speaking the line rather than the actual line itself.

The acting in this film is a mixed bag of surprisingly good performances and those that are barely average or below. Leading the cast was the relatively unknown (at the time) Jamie Lee Curtis. I still am impressed by the work Jamie put into creating Laurie. The innocence and naiveté that she displays is what makes her so endearing to the audience, resulting in us rooting for her survival all the more. Her compassion and bravery during the more harrowing scenes her character goes through are also very commendable. It is not often in horror movies that the characters appear to be as genuinely concerned for the safety of others over their own. Within these moments for Laurie Strode I believe John Carpenter really excelled in driving home her maturity and development as a character over the course of the film.

Veteran actor Donald Pleasence, whose character of Dr. Sam Loomis shares nearly as much screen time as Jamie’s, delivered to audiences a character that could have been written off as being one dimensional by so many other actors. Donald portrayed Loomis with an interesting mix of fierce determination to stop Michael’s reign of terror, and also an underlying remorse for not being able to cure Michael of his bloodlust. It was this dichotomy within the role that made him an intriguing member of the cast for not only this movie, but the numerous sequels that followed in which he co-starred.

The remaining characters in the movie are easily forgotten, but I would be remiss not to mention the less than stellar performances from the movie. First off, we have actress Nancy Kyes (or Nancy Loomis as she was known back then), who gave easily the worst performance in the movie. Perhaps some people liked her character of Annie Brackett in this film, but I for one found her to be whiny, brash and irritating. Nancy’s performance in the movie is the reason for why I earlier proposed that perhaps it was the actor or actress speaking the lines that made them sound bad rather than the line being poorly written. Her delivery was incredibly slow and at times painful to sit through as she struggled to get the words out in anything resembling a normal speech pattern. What’s disappointing about the character of Annie is that in the hands of a more capable actress, perhaps she would have been a more likeable addition to the movie; instead, I hated almost every moment she was on screen.

Lastly, there’s actress P.J. Soles, who was given the role of Lynda, a character whose sole purpose was to provide the obligatory sex appeal that these movies typically contain. The role of Lynda was a complete waste of time and P.J.’s phoned-in performance didn’t do anything to strengthen her character’s paper-thin story arc either. At least with Nancy Kyes’ character the script gave her more to do, it’s just she wasn’t able to really sell it. Perhaps P.J. should have been given the role of Annie rather than Nancy Kyes, because out of the two, P.J. is the more accomplished actress. Maybe with a different role P.J. could have given a better performance in this movie. Although, to be fair one would be hard pressed to find anything in this film, other than her looks, that shows how good P.J. Soles can be.

Despite its flaws, of which there are several, “Halloween” still stands tall as one of the best horror movies of all-time. Featuring a relatively solid storyline, good acting from the two principal players, a reliance on creating genuine scares rather than gore, and one of the eeriest musical scores I’ve ever heard, “Halloween” birthed not only a popular movie franchise, but an entire sub-genre. Not too shabby for a movie that was made for next to nothing.

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

Phone Booth

“Isn’t it funny? You hear a phone ring and it could be anybody. But a ringing phone has to be answered, doesn’t it?” This particular line, when used outside of the context of the movie, appears to be nothing more than a rudimentary observation of a typical human inclination. However, this very same line when spoken by actor Keifer Sutherland, with his distinctly recognizable voice that has instilled fear into many a terrorist on TV’s “24”, takes on a creepy and ominous tone. With this one line of dialogue the movie, “Phone Booth”, quickly kicks into high-gear and embarks upon a taut, tense thrill ride that will no doubt leave most audience members questioning whether or not they will answer a ringing public phone ever again.

“Phone Booth” focuses on one really bad day in the life of publicist Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) as his day goes from average to terrifying with one phone call. On the other end of the line is a deadly accurate sniper with a high-powered rifle aimed right at Stu. If Stu hopes to make it out of this ordeal alive he must do exactly what the caller dictates; if not, then his next breath could be his last.

Making a movie where your main character is forced to spend the better part of 90 minutes stuck in essentially one spot would seem to not only be a hard sell to the actor or actress playing the role, but also to the director, supporting cast members, and any potential studio looking at bankrolling and/or distributing the film. I mean, seriously how can this premise actually sustain an audiences interest for that long, while remaining believable and on top of that, maintaining a high level of suspense? I suppose one could say that making a movie about a man alone on a deserted island with a volleyball for a companion is just as hard, if not harder to sell. Yet, that particular movie (“Cast Away” for those that either don’t recall or weren’t aware) actually did well with both critics and audiences, proving that this type of film can work when done properly. All I can say is that clearly director Joel Schumacher (“A Time to Kill”), along with his cast, crew, and screenwriter, knew precisely what they were doing, thus creating an incredibly intense movie experience centered around one of the most mundane locations known to man… a phone booth.

Written by Larry Cohen, a writer who may have an affinity for all things phone related (another movie he wrote was titled “Cellular”), the story takes an interesting, albeit potentially boring and problematic, concept that could have been riddled with clichés and unoriginality, and turns it into a sleek, inventive, fast-paced thriller. One particular aspect I enjoyed about this film’s story is that it gives the audience enough of a taste of what Stu is like as a man prior to his ordeal, and then cleverly reveals more character details and flaws throughout the phone conversations. This method could have made the additional character development feel wedged into the story as an obvious means of exposition that would cause the pace to slow down; however, Cohen has weaved the details throughout the film in a way that never feels forced or unnatural within the context of the various phone calls.

Another aspect of the story that worked really well (and increased the tension for the audience), was the realism inherent in the story. The fact that the bulk of the movie takes place within such an ordinary and mundane setting, like a phone booth, makes what is occurring all the more frightening because it actually could happen to one us. The best scares movies have ever given to audiences almost always revolve around events and/or settings that most of us either encounter or potentially could in our normal day-to-day lives. It is the familiarity of the surroundings and the realistic nature of the threat in “Phone Booth” that amplifies our dread to a much greater degree than anything most horror films can ever hope to achieve.

Headlining this relatively small primary cast of characters is the ever-capable actor Colin Farrell (“American Outlaws”). Colin has proven over the course of several films during his relatively short career that he is an extremely talented actor and one that can hold his own with the biggest stars in the business. To my knowledge, “Phone Booth” is the first movie in which Colin must carry the lion’s share of the film’s workload alone. As with any actor or actress, a film such as this will test just how skilled an individual they truly are. With Colin’s stellar performance in this movie he easily proves his worth to not only audiences, but critics as well.

Alongside Colin in the supporting roles for the film are actors Forest Whitaker (“Phenomenon”) and Keifer Sutherland (TV’s “24”). Forest Whitaker brings more depth and believability to his character than the typical one-dimensional take the script seemed to provide. It is Whitaker’s warmth that exudes from the character’s initial conversations in the movie that makes him more relatable and balances out the otherwise cold and unforgiving nature of the rest of the police force depicted in the film.

Keifer Sutherland delivers one of the most chilling villainous portrayals in modern cinema, at least in my opinion. What’s most impressive about this performance is that it was acted predominantly through voice-over or in this case, phone calls. Surprisingly, this approach for showcasing the film’s main antagonist didn’t weaken the portrayal one bit. It is quite an achievement for an actor to make his presence feared throughout an entire movie without being seen for a majority of the duration. Keifer’s gruff and menacing voice work in this film is unsettling enough, but his character’s nonchalant approach to what he’s doing is perhaps the most terrifying of all. Nothing is more disturbing than a villain that believes he or she is justified in whatever actions they may take, and Keifer’s performance absolutely personifies that frame of mind.

Lastly, actresses Radha Mitchell (“Man on Fire”) and Katie Holmes (“Batman Begins”) are left with little more to do than just look good on camera and provide some added tension to a couple of moments within the film. Between the two, Radha’s character of Kelly, Stu’s wife, is given a few brief moments of development and importance within the film; however, even then her scenes really didn’t add all that much to the proceedings. Truth be told, I thought both actresses’ characters, or at least Katie’s character of Pam, could have been left out of the story and only be referred to in the conversations without sacrificing any of the intensity or excitement. In the end, both roles felt like nothing more than afterthoughts within the script.

With a screenplay rife with tension, solid performances from the cast especially star Colin Farrell, and a real world setting that makes the whole ordeal all the more startling to the audience; “Phone Booth” is an excellent thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.

“Phone Booth” is rated R for pervasive language, brief violence, and sexual references.

Ocean’s Thirteen

In 2001, director Steven Soderbergh brought us the re-imagining of the Rat Pack classic “Ocean’s Eleven”, and then in 2004, he followed it up with the not nearly as entertaining sequel “Ocean’s Twelve”. Three years later Soderbergh, and most of his original cast from the previous two films, returned one more time for “Ocean’s Thirteen”. For a franchise that has seen one great movie and one not-so great in its franchise’s relatively short existence, one must wonder how the third effort will turn out. Will “Ocean’s Thirteen” bring back the fun and excitement of the first film, or continue to falter under its own self-importance as “Ocean’s Twelve” did?

“Ocean’s Thirteen” begins with a member of Danny’s crew being swindled out of a share of profits in a new Las Vegas hotel by a nefarious businessman named Willy Bank (Al Pacino). Now, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and company want retribution for their deceived comrade, but to succeed they will have to pull off their most daring job yet.

Screenwriting duo Brian Koppelman and David Levien (“Knockaround Guys”) bring back to the “Ocean’s” franchise something that had been sorely missed in its second outing… all of the fun. This time around, not only is the script much more in the vein of the first film, but the entertainment value is nearly as high as it was the first go-round. With the clever comebacks, the wit, and an overall feel good atmosphere, none of which ever decreased the interesting and entertaining nature of “Ocean’s Eleven”, this latest installment brings the series back from the doldrums that ensnared it throughout the lesser-entertaining “Ocean’s Twelve”.

While the fun of the series has been revived that is not to say that this movie is lacking in any sort of drama. The story for “Ocean’s Thirteen” is the most intimate the series has ever been. By placing the Ocean’s crew in a position where one of theirs has been wronged and thus their newest job is driven purely by retribution from the get-go creates a fresh, new twist for what could have been an all-too familiar tale. One other aspect of this film’s story that one will notice when watching the movie is that there appears to be a sense of finality to the series’ various character arcs. I have heard that this is intended to be the final film in the franchise, at least with this cast, and if so, I appreciate the efforts made in the screenplay to bring resolution to not only the characters, but also the various plot threads that have existed since the first film. If this is indeed the final chapter for Danny Ocean and his crew, then this was a very satisfying and enjoyable ending to the series.

Reprising their roles from the previous two films are essentially everybody that we have become familiar with since 2001; however, Julia Roberts and previous newcomer Catherine Zeta-Jones are noticeably absent from the proceedings. Aside from those two missing assets, everyone else is back, and arguably better than ever. I was especially pleased to discover that the fast-paced repartee amongst the characters, primarily between Danny (George Clooney) and Rusty (Brad Pitt), was back in full force, and just as fluid and smartly crafted as before.

From my perspective as a fan of the series, despite the low point of “Ocean’s Twelve”, one of the highlights in the cast has remained Matt Damon’s character of Linus. Damon’s portrayal of Linus has evolved naturally over the course of the previous two films, culminating in this one with the audience finally getting to see Linus in a capacity that rivals Danny or Rusty in terms of respect, usefulness, and skill. Another highlight of the cast would be Carl Reiner who had been somewhat under-utilized in the previous two films; this time around he is given much more to do with his character. His comedic timing and immersion into the character is great, and he proves that even at his age he can easily keep up with his much younger co-stars.

Of course, when discussing the cast of “Ocean’s Thirteen” one would be remiss not to mention the terrific performances from the two newcomers to the series, Al Pacino (“The Godfather”) and Ellen Barkin (“Sea of Love”). These two enduring talents are extremely fun to watch in this film as both clearly appear to be enjoying themselves on camera. Ellen Barkin is perfect in the role of the seductive assistant to Al’s Willy Bank character. Ellen takes a character that should have been a fairly one-dimensional role and turned her into a complex, modern woman who is nearly as ruthless as her boss.

However, it was Al Pacino’s performance that was the most surprising to me. I know it sounds strange to say that Al Pacino gave a surprising performance, I mean let’s face it the guy is a legend, but it’s because of how low-key he was in this role when compared to some of his work from the last 10 to 15 years that I can say that. Here’s an actor that has become heavily parodied by today’s comedians because of his penchant for yelling his lines at random, and yet, in this film I can hardly recall a single instance where he really cut loose with the volume. Along with his reserved performance, Pacino delivers a character in Willy Bank that is so slimy, distrustful, and utterly narcissistic that you instantly hate him, but at the same time there’s something about the role that is flat-out entertaining. Honestly, Al’s portrayal of Willy Bank in “Ocean’s Thirteen” is some of the best work he’s done of late and is vastly superior to his less-than-stellar performances in “Righteous Kill” and “88 Minutes”.

“Ocean’s Thirteen” is an incredibly fun heist movie that brings the trilogy full circle, wrapping up the various threads in a very satisfying manner. Although not quite as good as the first film in the series, “Thirteen” is a very close second and more than makes up for the shortcomings of its predecessor.

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

Ocean’s Eleven

After grabbing the attention of both critics and audiences with stirring dramatic pieces, such as “Erin Brockovich” and “Traffic”, director Steven Soderbergh moved on to some lighter and definitely more fun-loving fare in 2001. By helming the remake of the Rat Pack classic, “Ocean’s Eleven”, Soderbergh proved that not only could he deliver top-notch, Oscar caliber films, but also a money-making crowd pleaser when the occasion arose.

“Ocean’s Eleven” is the story of a recently paroled thief, Danny Ocean (George Clooney), as he attempts to reassemble his life prior to incarceration. As Danny soon discovers finding a way to put one’s life back together may be much harder than he thought. In his mind, one of the only ways to successfully reclaim what was once his is to pull yet another job. To do this he will enlist the aid of a cadre of fellow thieves in an attempt to pull off one of the most daring, brilliant, and undeniably dangerous heists to ever occur within the city of Las Vegas.

Whenever a director, actor, producer or studio attempts to remake a classic film for modern audiences, finding success with said film will almost always be a chore. This is especially true if the original in question happens to be a beloved film, especially by Sinatra fans. For starters, all those behind the newest interpretation must have an extremely clear vision for what they want out of the film, and be willing to take some calculated risks with it, not just simply do a retread of the original. Of course, the audience should obviously expect any remake to feature some differences, both large and small, that deviate from the original film; however, in doing so comes the chance that fans of the original may not be so forgiving of certain alterations and/or omissions. Secondly, the story will inevitably draw an obvious comparison to its predecessor, and if the new one doesn’t even remotely measure up in the audiences and critics’ eyes, then nothing else will matter. Finally, if the first two steps are accomplished, then the casting has got to be perfect, or close to it. For a movie this size to even compare, means that an extremely capable ensemble cast must be assembled in order to equal the star power and talent of the original.

Let’s start with the screenplay for “Ocean’s Eleven”, as written by Ted Griffin (“Rumor Has It…”). Griffin’s well-written, tightly focused and fast-paced story gives audiences a caper film that exudes confidence and embraces a fun-loving attitude without sacrificing good storytelling. A lot of the fun to be had by this movie rests in the interplay between the Ocean’s crew of professional criminals, social misfits, and borderline sociopaths. The quick-witted, slyly sarcastic banter provides many of the film’s funniest moments, if you were fast enough and paying close attention to catch the subtlety hidden within the dialogue. Another intriguing part of the story was the time devoted to the planning and preparation involved in putting together such a multi-faceted con job.

Of course, I don’t want to forget to mention that aside from the two things I listed above, the remainder of the film is a noteworthy example of how to tell a really complicated story, but without making it so confusing that the audience is too easily lost. I will admit that there were moments within the script where it seems the movie came dangerously close to becoming too overly complicated. Yet just when it’s about to go over that edge, Griffin reigns the story back in to avoid the dreaded pitfall.

The cast for “Ocean’s Eleven” features some of the greatest screen legends and icons that Hollywood has to offer. From George Clooney to Brad Pitt, Carl Reiner to Elliot Gould, Julia Roberts to Matt Damon, and Andy Garcia to Don Cheadle, this wide range of talent on display is arguably one of the finest ever assembled within a single film. What’s more is that the camaraderie between the cast members portraying the titular characters is so genuine and natural that they make the movie all the more enjoyable.

One more thing in regards to the cast, the two members that seemed to stand out the most for me was Andy Garcia and Matt Damon. Both actors were playing characters that seemed very different from their previous work. For Andy Garcia, I hadn’t seen him in a villainous role before, at least not to my recollection; yet, I thought he portrayed the smarmy nature of the character perfectly, and the subtle hint of malice in all that he does made him the perfect foil to Clooney’s Danny Ocean. With Matt Damon, the majority of roles I had seen him in have always been more serious in tone, but with his character of Linus in this film he is almost the complete opposite. His portrayal is much more comedic and at times the character clearly appears overwhelmed by everything going on around him. While Linus is competent at his criminal niche, his determination to prove himself to the others tends to spotlight his own insecurities regarding his proficiency at pulling a job; thus providing for many of the lighter moments from his character within the film.

As for fans of the original film, I believe that despite the changes and updates made to the original’s story, most will be happy with the end results. The cast and crew seemed to take pride in making the film in a way that resembles the original, yet remains distinctively separate from it. Not to mention this new version, in my opinion, openly attempts to honor and improve upon what has come before rather than trample and disrespect its predecessor.

“Ocean’s Eleven” is a slickly composed, fast-paced, and above all enjoyable film from a director that had previously been known for his intensely dramatic pieces rather than fun-loving audience pleasers. Featuring an all-star cast, numerous twists and turns, a plethora of engaging characters and a plot that is both intelligent and entertaining, “Ocean’s Eleven” is a terrific update to one of Hollywood’s legendary classics.

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

Transformers

When it was first announced that a ‘Transformers’ film was being made many people were skeptical, including me, regarding how good could this adaptation possibly be. The concerns were numerous, from will whoever’s making it screw it up? Will the robots look real? Will the essence of the series remain intact? Will the characters bear any resemblance to their animated counterparts? So on and so forth. I figured this movie, like so many others of this magnitude, would simply gain a little momentum and then fade away into the depths of development heck. That was until the announcement came that Steven Spielberg (director of “Jurassic Park”) would serve as Executive Producer, while action director extraordinaire, Michael Bay (“The Island” and “Armageddon”) would be the one sitting in the director’s chair on a movie that could prove to be every 80’s kids dream come to life (real actual Transformers) or simply another fond childhood memory trampled upon by Hollywood types that ruin everything (the live-action flop, “Masters of the Universe”).

“Transformers” begins when a young teenager named Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) purchases a car from a local car lot, in hopes of impressing the girl of his dreams, Mikaela (Megan Fox). Unbeknownst to Sam is that his car is not just any regular car, it is actually an Autobot named Bumblebee who was sent to Earth to find the All-Spark before the evil Decepticons can get their hands on it. However, the Decepticons, including Starscream, Barricade, and Devastator, were already on Earth, and are quickly becoming aware that Sam unknowingly holds the key to finding the All-Spark. To stop the Decepticons, Bumblebee enlists the aid of his Autobot compatriots Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and their leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen). Now, the Autobots and Decepticons continue their war that began so long ago on Cybertron, but this time Earth will be there new battleground.

Director Michael Bay and Executive Producer Steven Spielberg have done what some thought impossible. They managed to make a live-action ‘Transformers’ movie and it was absolutely spectacular. With a fun and engaging story that featured humor, action, romance, and some of the most pulse-pounding action set pieces, “Transformers” is the epitome of what a summer blockbuster is supposed to be. This film easily bypassed all fan expectation, including my own. After I saw the initial previews I thought the movie would be good, but I had no idea it would be this much of a thrill ride.

Director Michael Bay was by far the best choice for helming such an audacious action/adventure movie. By now it is pretty clear; no one blows up stuff on screen as well as Michael Bay. What’s also impressive about what Bay has done with “Transformers” is that his budget was less than that of “Spider-Man 3” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (separately, not combined), but truth be told, “Transformers” is a much better movie all around than either of those two wound up being. Surprisingly, even with a more restrained budget, Bay still managed to put more visually exciting sequences on the screen than either of those films (in my opinion), and he did so using a mixture of computer generated imagery, practical effects work (an actual full-size replica of Bumblebee was built for use in some scenes), and good old’ fashioned explosions that will knock your socks off. Now that’s impressive! What it all boils down to is that Bay knows what his audience wants to see, and he seems to know how to deliver virtually every time.

A movie focusing on walking and talking transforming robots would be nothing without astoundingly realistic CGI creations to adorn the screen. For this task the talented men and women of George Lucas’ acclaimed Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), produced some of the best computer generated imagery I have ever seen on display in a feature film. ILM created such realistic looking robots, even taking into account the effect of weight and gravity (watch the fight sequence between Optimus Prime and Bonecrusher on the streets of Los Angeles to see an example of how these two components are used), plus reflections, tiny cracks, and imperfections covering the robots (seen in any close-up of the Transformers), that you would swear that these robots were actually real. This movie’s visual effects work is truly a benchmark for the industry.

The actors assembled for this movie consist of a fun mixture of veterans (Jon Voight and John Turturro), rising stars (Tyrese Gibson and Shia LaBeouf), and relative newcomers (Megan Fox and Rachael Taylor). Each member of the cast did an outstanding job of keeping every aspect of the movie exciting, even when the Transformers weren’t on the screen. The onscreen chemistry between Shia and Megan was a nice addition to the movie, and made their blossoming romance much more endearing. Adding to that was the fact that Bumblebee served as Sam’s wingman was an especially sweet and funny touch to the dynamic. With the release of this movie, in conjunction with his other film in 2007 the thriller “Disturbia”, Shia LaBeouf has proven that he easily has what it takes to carry a film, and is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s most sought after talents.

Of course, all of these components together would have all been for naught without the excellent voice-over work provided for each of the Transformers. It was a great treat for the fanboy in me to have Peter Cullen reprise his iconic role as the voice of Optimus Prime (the only actor from the animated series that returned for this movie). Without his recognizable voice giving Optimus life, the character just wouldn’t have been the same. Hugo Weaving (‘The Matrix’ trilogy) was a fine choice for Megatron, although his voice is not so easily recognized due to a hefty amount of digital remixing to make him sound more mechanical, but he still did a good job as the evil leader of the Decepticons. The rest of the voice actors were not as recognizable, in terms of other work they’d done, but they were all equally solid in their performances. Together these actors made each and every one of the Transformers just as memorable as their two leaders.

As summer blockbusters go, “Transformers” is truly one of the best. It’s an excellent visual effects extravaganza that is extremely entertaining and features a great cast, a strong story that sets the stage for even bigger things in future sequels, and some of the most incredible action you will see in a movie. This is one action film that is a definite must see!

“Transformers” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and mild sexual humor.

X-Men: The Last Stand

In the last decade one genre has returned from almost certain death to become one of Hollywood’s most lucrative sources of income. That genre is that of the superhero, or comic book genre as it is most commonly referred to as. Several franchises have been successfully established within this revived genre, some standouts would be the ‘Spider-Man’ movies, ‘Batman’ reboot and the ‘Blade’ trilogy. In the midst of all of those, one franchise has stood out from all the others by taking the focus of the comic book film away from being only on a few key characters and onto an entire team of heroes. This set of movies is none other than the ‘X-Men’ franchise.

After two highly successful trips to the box office with “X-Men” and “X2: X-Men United”, both with Bryan Singer at the helm, the third film “X-Men: The Last Stand” would feature a new director. For the third entry in the series, director Brett Ratner (“Red Dragon”) took over for Bryan Singer, who left the series to direct “Superman Returns”. The decision to have Brett Ratner at the helm of such a high profile movie that was to serve as the supposed final chapter in the popular superhero trilogy, caused many a fan to become uneasy. This was caused in part by the fact that Ratner had at one point been picked by Warner Brothers to direct the newest ‘Superman’ movie; however, before much progress could be made he dropped out of the film. So, with a new director onboard that had little to no obvious experience in dealing with elaborate visual effects (not to mention the fact that he couldn’t handle one hero let alone a team), and the success of a franchise on the line, one question remained. “Could this latest chapter in the ‘X-Men’ series hope to succeed when it seemed that so many factors were working against it?”

“X-Men: The Last Stand” begins with the creation of a new ‘cure’ for the mutant gene, allowing those born with powers to choose whether they wanted to remain mutants or take the cure and become normal human beings. This ‘cure’ quickly becomes the focus for the mutant race, and serves as the potential catalyst to spark an all-out war that has been brewing between Magneto’s (Sir Ian McKellan) ‘Brotherhood of Mutants’ and Professor Charles Xavier’s (Patrick Stewart) X-Men. With mutantkind divided as to which side to choose, the battle lines are quickly being drawn, and the final battle is about to begin!

Screenwriter Zak Penn (“xXx: State of the Union”), taking over for departing writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris (who also jumped ship to work on “Superman Returns”), chose wisely (in my opinion) to not focus on a story dealing solely with the ‘cure’ for mutants. Granted the cure story arc was interesting and provided some very captivating moments between key characters as some felt the cure was a blessing, while others felt it was just another way for humans to oppress the mutants even further. With that being said, I don’t feel that this storyline would have been able to sustain the film throughout its entire duration. With that in mind I feel confident in stating that the film greatly benefited from the intermixing of the incredibly popular Phoenix story arc from the comic books. The Phoenix plotline, just as it did in the comics, provided some very intense moments within the story, along with numerous opportunities for the characters to explore how they feel about Jean’s miraculous resurrection and her newly unleashed awesome power. This proved especially true for Hugh Jackman’s character Wolverine, as he now finds the woman he loves may be a threat to everything else he holds dear.

Many detractors of this film felt that the movie lacked in substance, and that the film would have been better served had it focused solely on Jean Grey becoming the Phoenix. I agree that the film probably would have been even better had it dealt even more, if not solely on Jean’s manifestation into the Phoenix. However I must disagree with the first sentiment about the lack of substance. This film was the final act (or at least it appears to be) in a trilogy, meaning that in some way it ties into events that occurred in the previous two films. Therefore, this film is intended more as a means of tying up any and all remaining loose ends left over from its predecessors, while at the same time expanding somewhat on what had been laid out prior to this entry. In the case of “X-Men: The Last Stand”, the film’s story was focused on exploring what happened to Jean in the closing moments of “X2”, unleashing the war that had been brewing between the two opposing sides of the mutant race, and introducing us to the concept of a cure for mutants. If you ask me, those three aspects of the story provided plenty of substance for this film to draw from, and it did so in a satisfying way that didn’t come off as overly bloated and complicated like some third film’s in a trilogy have of late (for example, “The Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”).

The cast, as they have been in the previous installments, was still as great as ever; except for a couple of exceptions. Actresses Halle Berry and Anna Paquin appeared to struggle with their characters for some reason in this film. Both of their performances varied between good to being just flat and disinterested in nature. I will say that aside from her performance in “X2”, Halle has been inconsistent with her interpretation of the X-Man known as Storm; however, by this point one would have hoped that she would have figured the character out by now. As for Anna Paquin, I don’t really know what the problem was; perhaps it was her character’s arc in this film and her insecurity about being a mutant becoming more apparent given the newly discovered cure. Whatever the case may be, she clearly struggled to find a groove in her surprisingly small amount of screen time, given that the character was much more involved in the previous two films, and in the end she delivered what could possibly be classified as the most uninspired performance in the film. Like I said, aside from these two, the remainder of the returning cast members continued to deliver solid performances, even when relegated to little more than a cameo appearance (I’m referring to James Marsden’s character Cyclops).

Joining the returning members, the film featured several newcomers to the series, such as Kelsey Grammer (Beast), Vinnie Jones (Juggernaut) and Ben Foster (Angel), all of whom fit right in, as if they’d been members of the cast since the very first movie. Now, I for one never would have picked Kelsey Grammer (TV’s “Fraiser”) to embody the X-Man known as the Beast. Sure he could handle the intellectual dialogue and would sound genuine in doing so, but I wouldn’t have thought of him as being all that physical of an actor. However, there he was in some of the fight sequences right in there with the other X-Men, and holding his own without any trouble at all. It’s just one more example of how some of the casting choices in Hollywood never cease to amaze me in how spot on they are, despite all appearances to the contrary. Next we have soccer player turned actor Vinnie Jones (“Gone in 60 Seconds”) offering up his portrayal of the powerhouse mutant known as Juggernaut. Juggernaut pretty much did in this film exactly what the character is known for in the comics, essentially decimate anything and everything in his path. The only major difference between the two mediums is that there was no mention ever made to the character being the half-brother to Charles Xavier. Aside from that Vinnie’s performance was as good as expected for an actor playing a character that isn’t known for being all that much of a thinker or having any real depth to him.

Last but not least, we have actor Ben Foster as the mutant known as Warren Worthington III, a.k.a. Angel. The only thing you can say about Ben, other than the fact that he pretty much knocks every performance out of the park, is that he is a true chameleon when it comes to his appearance and presentation from role to role. In one movie he’ll have long black hair and an extremely bad attitude (“Hostage”), then he’ll have scraggly red hair, a plethora of piercings, and a heart of gold (“The Punisher”), or he will be a clean cut, blonde heir to a massive fortune as he is in this film. It’s amazing to me to see just how diverse Ben has proven to be in various movies, and each performance is always unique from the one before it. This is one actor who I believe will go down as one of the best and most talented of his generation.

The action scenes in this film are the most intense out of all the ‘X-Men’ movies. Everything is so exciting and fast-paced that you feel like you have to see the movie more than once to fully take it all in. Going hand-in-hand with the action, the special effects work is also the best out of the franchise. Not that the visuals in the first two movies were anything to look down upon. In this film there is one sequence alone, involving the Golden Gate Bridge, that is worth the price of purchasing this movie.

“X-Men: The Last Stand” isn’t a perfect movie by any means; however, it completely ties up all loose ends while still delivering to us a pulse-pounding battle that had been teased at for the last two films. Despite all the bad press this film has received among some fans, critics and so on, I personally found this installment to be just as entertaining as the first film, and a fitting end to the series.

“X-Men: The Last Stand” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sensuality.

X-Men

In the year 2000, Marvel Comics in association with 20th Century Fox officially ushered in the current age of superhero movies with the successful box office smash “X-Men”. Truthfully, out of all of their vast properties to adapt for the silver screen, the X-Men seemed in my estimation to be one of the riskiest endeavors for Marvel in terms of being a hit. I felt it was a risky choice if for no other reason than the fact that the X-Men universe is so rich and diverse that it would seem almost impossible to winnow it down to a manageable level that could easily fit into a 90 minute or two hour running time. Yet, despite a few minor flaws in the story and/or some tweaks to some characters, the difficult task was accomplished in an extremely impressive fashion under the watchful eye of talented director Bryan Singer (“The Usual Suspects”).

“X-Men” is the story of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), a mutant who has the unique ability to heal from any wound along with unsheathing razor-sharp adamantium (an unbreakable metal) claws from his hands, as he struggles to find the truth about himself, while helping a young mutant named Rogue (Anna Paquin). During their journey the two encounter a team of mutants led by the enigmatic Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), who believes that somehow both humans and mutants can find a way to peacefully co-exist with one another. However, for every school of thought there is an equally strong opposing viewpoint, and this one is led by a powerful and extremely angry mutant named Magneto (Ian McKellan). As battle lines are being drawn, Wolverine and Rogue find themselves stuck in the middle of a war they never knew existed, and are forced to choose a side to stand with before time runs out.

The story for “X-Men” as written by David Hayter (“Watchmen”) provided a very nice and neat introduction into the expansive universe that these iconic characters inhabit. While this initial film featured a relatively focused story that revolved around the two pivotal roles of Wolverine and Rogue and their quest for answers and acceptance, it hinted at the potential for a much bigger story to follow on a much grander scale. For most franchises to succeed, especially those that could be deemed risky, you need the initial story to be a little smaller in scope in order to draw your audience in and establish the groundwork of relationships with which further sequels can build upon. Writer David Hayter understood this and crafted a very tight and concise script that moved along at an almost relentless pace, yet without really skimping on too many of the details. For comic book fans there were numerous nods or references to either events or characters from the comics, but this movie wasn’t just for the fanboys. The wisest decision that 20th Century Fox and Marvel made was to make these characters as accessible to those outside of the world of comics as possible, but at the same time not making such drastic changes so as to alienate your core fan base. All of this was achieved with the story for “X-Men” and as I said a moment ago, it served as the perfect jumping point for this series to expand from.

Bringing the film to life was director Bryan Singer, who with this movie brought to comic book films something that had been noticeably absent for many years…a semi-grounded sense of reality not too dissimilar from our own (apart from the whole super-powered thing mind you). Previous to this film (and for that matter the first “Blade” film), the only truly successful comic book movies were those in the initial Batman franchise, and in each of those movies we found a very eccentric, gothic-inspired reality that was more outlandish and showy. For me I appreciated the fact that Bryan chose to steep these films in a reality that was much more recognizable to our own rather than one much more fantastic. By doing this we are able to better relate to the characters, and therefore become immersed in the story, allowing for a much easier suspension of our disbelief (which every fantasy and/or sci-fi film relies upon).

Besides the look and feel of the film, Bryan also excelled in creating some really fun, entertaining action sequences that at times felt like they were the very panels of a comic book coming to life. As a fan of comic books and some of the comic book films that had come prior to this film’s release, I was pleased to watch an adaptation that knew how to blend the action elements together with intriguing character development. Generally these types of films had been written off as no more than summer fluff at the box office, and nine times out of ten this had been proven true. Not since 1989’s “Batman” (to my recollection) had a comic book movie effectively blended those two all-important elements together to such a great degree of success. So, for this adaptation to buck the established order of things (so to speak), and actually include a coherent story rife with interesting characters along with the obvious entertainment factor inherent in most visual effects movies was a bit unheard of. Thankfully, Bryan Singer and his writer David Hayter, along with everyone else involved in the decision making behind the scenes of “X-Men” were smart enough to create a film that stayed somewhat true to the notion that this was a summer blockbuster, but also a movie that contained some great drama and could please audiences for years to come beyond its stay at the box office.

Starring in this film is quite the varied group of talented actors and actresses ranging from veterans of both stage and screen, such as Sir Ian McKellan (“Apt Pupil”) and Patrick Stewart (“Star Trek: Nemesis”), to some of Hollywood’s great beauties like Famke Janssen (“Taken”) and Halle Berry (“Swordfish”) to relative new faces like Anna Paquin (“Fly Away Home”) and Hugh Jackman (“Someone Like You”). What was great about this cast is that each member brought a seriousness to the role and portrayed these comic book characters as if they were any other dramatic role, opting not to play up the camp factor that would have been the order of the day in previous years past (for example the much maligned “Batman & Robin”). For a majority of the actors and actresses chosen for the various mutants, and humans for that matter, the casting appeared to be strokes of genius and good fortune combined, as each one looked as if they had manifested directly from the comic book page.

Perhaps the biggest surprise casting choice, for me at least, would be a then unknown Hugh Jackman as the fan favorite Wolverine. Having not seen Jackman in anything prior to this film I wasn’t sure if he could do justice to the clawed hero; however, I was completely blown away by the intensity and ferocity that Jackman brought to the role. His portrayal is so spot-on that it reached the point that his interpretation became almost universally accepted by the comic book fan community as being the one true Wolverine. A move that is surprising given that this community is generally extremely finicky about sticking to the details of their beloved heroes, not to mention the fact that Jackman is over 6’ tall, lean, yet still muscular rather than being a short, and semi-stocky, but extremely muscular guy that would more closely resemble his comic book counterpart. With that knowledge one could see how surprising it is that his portrayal was so easily accepted, but I guess when it’s clear that he’s the ideal person for the role, some details can be overlooked for the greater good of the franchise.

“X-Men” was a very well written, directed, and acted movie that gave comic book fans and audiences in general something that everyone could enjoy. For comic book fans there were some minor gripes about changes made to some of the characters origins, but nothing significant enough to take away from how great this movie was, or what it would mean for other comic book characters being brought to life on the big screen. Even after all the comic book movies that have bowed since this film’s opening, “X-Men” still remains one of my all-time favorites of the genre, a fact that I don’t see changing anytime in the near future.

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

Fast & Furious

After three high-octane rides on the street racing scene, the fourth film in the “The Fast and the Furious” series features a departure from the flashy, overblown colors, obvious CGI-enhancement, and at times over-the-top stunts of the previous two films. With “Fast & Furious” the series returns to its roots with a grittier, more realistic leaning tone and reunites the primary players from the original film’s cast of gearheads for more high speed mayhem.

“Fast & Furious” finds Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) continuing his lawless ways in the Dominican Republic alongside his girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) and a new crew of velocity addicted miscreants. When the law begins to close in on Dom and his crew, difficult choices are made, plans are put into motion, and a life is lost. All of this forces Dom to return to his native Los Angeles on a quest for answers and to ultimately deal with those responsible. While back in town, Dom is reunited, albeit begrudgingly, with his former friend Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker), who once again finds he is torn between doing what he desires most or following the letter of the law he’s sworn to uphold.

With the slightly weaker feel of the previous two films in the series, I was kind of unsure of how good this fourth attempt would prove to be, regardless of the fact that many of the original film’s cast members were reprising their roles eight years later. After seeing “Fast & Furious” over the weekend, I can honestly say that any misgivings I had regarding the film were easily blown away by the sheer entertainment value and superiority exuded by this film over anything included in the previous two films.

Besides the original film’s primary cast returning to the series that made them stars, the writer and director duo of Chris Morgan and Justin Lin (“The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”) make their return to the series with a much more polished final product than what had been featured in their previous effort. The screenplay is a much more complex work than one may expect from this type of movie. Screenwriter Chris Morgan ups the stakes for all the players, delivering several twists along the way, and some very sharply written dialogue, all of which makes for a thoroughly entertaining ride from start to finish. The story really seems to focus on resolving storylines begun in the first movie, and creating a stronger link between all of the other movies in the series, especially “Tokyo Drift” (which has always felt a little bit like an outcast in the franchise). As a fan of the series, I believe that this film’s more mature storyline and well-written dialogue showcases the time and effort that Chris Morgan put into this film, and the work definitely pays off by rewarding longtime fans of the franchise by interconnecting each of the films, while not alienating any newcomers.

Director Justin Lin shows an even steadier hand when it came to helming his second effort in the series. Even though Justin proved quite capable in capturing the high speeds and general fast-paced nature of the series with “Tokyo Drift”, his work here is stronger even if it is with a little less flashiness. By approaching the film more in the vein of the original’s look and tone, Lin imbues “Fast & Furious” with a grittier nature that cements its close ties to the aforementioned, along with having the slight feel of an urban crime drama (albeit without the same level of intensity inherent in most of those films). If there are to be any more films in this series, then I believe that the powers-that-be may have found a valuable asset in this director, and one that they should use whenever possible to maintain consistency between the installments (something this series has previously lacked).

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times already, the cast for this film features many returning members from the original film. Let’s begin with one of the biggest breakout stars of the original, Vin Diesel (“A Man Apart”). In his reprisal as Dom Toretto, Vin gives one of the best performances of his career, if not his best yet (easily rivaling his work in “A Man Apart” or “Find Me Guilty”). In this film, Diesel is given more opportunity to explore Dom, whether it is his passion for the various facets of his life, personal loss, the issue of trust, or merely the unbridled fury that we had only heard mention of in the first film. Here we are presented with a much more layered and developed anti-hero than had been previously established, and one who is more weathered and world-weary from all of the experiences he has endured whether good or bad. If there are still some detractors of Vin’s work out there, then the combination of his movies mentioned above should help convince them to the contrary, so long as they ignore his misfire with the dismal “Babylon A.D.”.

Alongside Vin is Paul Walker as the other main lead for this installment. This film also marks Walker’s second reprisal as the lead in this series, as Paul was the only main cast member to return for the initial sequel “2 Fast 2 Furious”. To be fair, Vin has also appeared in the series three times, although his second appearance was just a cameo in the final moments of “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”. But I digress, now back to Paul Walker’s performance as one-time ex-law man turned outlaw turned active FBI agent Brian O’Connor. It’s a rather convoluted series of events that comprise O’Connor’s storyline through the series, but it works. In the first film, Paul gave a fairly solid, if not flawed performance, which he proceeded to follow-up with a decidedly more surfer-esque, flat and stilted performance, replete with more “Yo’s”, “Bro’s”, and “Check it’s” than one would care to count. Paul’s third stint in the series, much like Vin’s return, makes for his best performance of the series, not to mention his entire career. I used to think that he was one of those actors that merely skated by on his looks and onscreen charm, with very little acting talent holding it all together. With his performance here he is much more reserved and believable, even intense at times, to the point that one wonders if there may be hope for Paul’s career as a serious actor yet. Gone are the various surfer boy idioms, replaced by a much more mature character who is still trying desperately to atone for past mistakes.

The final two returning characters are the two important female roles of Mia and Letty (Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez respectively). Both of these characters suffered from very little development in their first outing, a problem that has now been rectified by this film. The character of Mia is given a very emotional arc to go through over the course of the film as she is forced to deal with the return of her former lover and betrayer of her family, Brian O’Connor. Jordana proves with her more developed role and character arc that she has the acting chops necessary to handle more of the story should the occasion call for it, something that future writers of the series may want to take note of should her character make any more return appearances. Michelle Rodriguez has proven in numerous movies and on TV’s “Lost” that she is a very capable actress, but in this series she has yet to really be all that important or necessary for that matter. In the first film she was merely Dom’s girlfriend and not all that interesting beyond that; however, in this story her character is central to the film’s main plotline. I have to admit that while I wasn’t all that enthralled by Michelle’s character in the original film, she definitely proved more interesting in this one, and was much more enjoyable to watch as she really seemed to be having a good time in the role.

Lastly, we have one key newcomer to the franchise. Actor John Ortiz (“Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem”) plays a man named Campos whose job is to find and recruit drivers to smuggle drugs for a very powerful Mexican cartel. I haven’t seen John in any kind of tough guy roles, mostly because I haven’t seen too many movies he’s appeared in, but I have to say he was very convincing in the role. He portrayed the character with a subtle hint of menace, never really overdoing it just keeping an obvious air about him that this guy is not one to be trifled with. While he wasn’t given an incredible amount of screen time, what he is given John makes the most of. John delivers a strong antagonist that could have ended up being just another stock character, but became something a little more developed thanks to his work in the role.

“Fast & Furious” is by far the best of the sequels in the series, and easily rivals the original film, possibly even surpasses it. This is all due to a much tighter and more developed story, the best acting in the entire series, and a much more grounded sense of reality than the previous two films boasted. If you’ve been a fan of the series or have simply become disappointed by the direction it’s taken in the previous sequels, then this is the movie to see as it undoubtedly kicks the franchise back into high gear.

As a side note, it’s important to know that “Fast & Furious” occurs prior to the events shown in the third film, “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”.

“Fast & Furious” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sexuality.

The Fast and the Furious

The summer of 2001 was chock full of great movies for audiences to feast their eyes upon. Within that assortment of entertainment there was one film that stepped out of the shadows of obscurity to become one of the biggest surprise hits of the year. That film is the adrenaline-fueled thrill ride known as “The Fast and the Furious” starring Vin Diesel (“A Man Apart”) and Paul Walker (“Varsity Blues”), and directed by successful action director Rob Cohen (“xXx”).

On the streets of Los Angeles, in the world of street racing, there is only one question you must answer to in order to win the day: Are you faster than all other contenders standing next to you? For undercover LAPD officer Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker), that question is one that he is determined to answer at any cost by taking down the one man that rules the street racing life, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel). However, can Brian remain loyal to his brothers in blue while at the same time becoming immersed into this fast-paced world of cars, money, and women?

My initial reaction when I saw the first trailers for this film was one of indifference. Based on the trailer the film seemed to be just an endless supply of racing sequences, close-ups of cars, women, and so on and so forth, with not much of anything else really holding the experience together. While each of those items I mentioned are on display in this film (and I’m not complaining about that in the least), there also happens to be plenty of story to tie it all together in a very cohesive fashion that I found surprising for a movie like this.

The story, written by Gary Scott Thompson (“Hollow Man”), Erik Bergquist, and David Ayer (“Training Day”), is a non-stop ride filled with intense racing, character development (surprisingly enough), drama, and even a little bit of romance. I thought it was wise for the writers to take the time to actually build-up relationships between the characters, especially the two leads. Thus allowing the audience to get to know them and relate to them, so that even when they do things that we know isn’t completely legal, we still side with them due to our connection. The inclusion of the theme of loyalty was also a very nice touch and in the end was the overall theme for the entire film. Many times a film’s theme(s) are beaten endlessly into the audience so that they don’t miss the main message of the film; however, in this instance the question of loyalty amongst the film’s characters is handled in a much more realistic fashion. Only a few instances is it really touched upon in an overt way, and rarely does it feel forced into the storyline as a way to catch up those audience members that might not be comprehending the underlying theme. For a film that at first glance appeared to be a brainless actioner for the adrenaline junkies, the well-developed storyline really took me on a much more enjoyable ride than I initially thought possible.

For a movie like this to succeed several key factors must fall into place, among them it must have the combined talents of stunt drivers, computer wizards, and of course a director accustomed to action films to hold it all together. The stunt drivers in this film have got to be without a doubt some of the best in the business, if not the very best. The tricks they achieve are truly stunning, and sure some of them benefited from CGI enhancement, but even with that assistance there was plenty of realism involved to serve as the basis for the technical wizards to draw upon. As for director Rob Cohen, he tends to be one of those directors that creates very entertaining movies for the general public, but finds himself maligned by most critics. With “The Fast and the Furious” I believe that Rob has actually crafted what could be his best and most comprehensive movie to date, and as a person that has enjoyed many of his films, it’s a shame he’s not more appreciated by most film critics.

And finally, we cannot forget the cast of talented up-and-comers that brought these characters to life. Portraying the film’s two leads are Vin Diesel and Paul Walker. Another part of why this film found bigger success than was expected (at least in my opinion) is due to the brotherly type of relationship between Dominic and Brian that develops over the course of the film. Had their scenes not felt so realistic and natural, this movie would have fallen apart at the seams in an instant.

Regarding the actors individual performances let’s start off with Vin Diesel. For the majority of Vin’s work he ends up criticized for being a one-note performance type of actor, which normally means he’s best suited for the action genre; however, in this film there are a couple of times where he lets down the machismo armor and allows a gentler side come to the fore. It’s in these times, and in other films he’s done (i.e. “A Man Apart” or “Find Me Guilty”), where Vin shows that there is more depth to him than most critics give him credit for. As for Paul Walker, I typically find him to be a decent actor, albeit with a little too much laid back, surfer dude quality imbued within every performance he gives. However, for this film, it is that very quality that seems to make him an ideal choice to play the character of Brian O’Connor. And for the most part, his performance in this movie is actually quite good, only a couple of instances he seemed like he rushed some lines or was a bit stiff, overall it was one of the stronger performances in his career.

Supporting the two leads are actresses Michelle Rodriguez (“Resident Evil”) and Jordana Brewster (“Annapolis”). Both actresses do well with their respective roles; although, for me personally I would have preferred a little more work had been put into developing Jordana’s character a bit further. It seemed that her character was essentially there for two reasons, to serve as the catalyst for getting Brian mixed up with Dominic’s crew, and secondly, to be Brian’s love interest so that all the ladies in the audience would have a little bit of romance to enjoy. Jordana’s character of Mia seemed like she could have been a more interesting character given the opportunity, but I guess the writers just didn’t really know what all to do with her. As for Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), she was a different kind of character than I expected, because in essence she was just a female version of Dominic. Just like Mia, Michelle’s character was mostly used as a love interest and strong female character for the ladies to relate to. Unlike Mia though, I didn’t really find Letty to be all that interesting and worthy of receiving any further screen time, especially since most of her background was summed up in a matter of sentences and beyond that I didn’t feel any further exposition was warranted.

“The Fast and the Furious” was not only a surprise hit at the box office, but also a surprise for me as well. As I stated before, I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from the movie, but upon watching it I found that I was sorely mistaken in that assumption, and extremely entertained at the same time. This film is definitely a lot of fun, especially for car guys, but even if you’re not, there is plenty in this film to keep you entertained and in my opinion leave you wanting more.

“The Fast and the Furious” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sexuality.