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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 marks the fourth time critically acclaimed actor Denzel Washington has teamed-up with director Tony Scott for a film. The previous three movies were outstanding crowd pleasers, from the intense character driven drama of “Crimson Tide”, to the action-packed thrill-ride of “Man on Fire”, followed by the surprisingly enjoyable time-jumping actioner “Déjà Vu”. With such extremely entertaining movies being produced from this actor/director combination, I had no reason to doubt that I would enjoy their fourth collaboration, the remake of “The Taking of Pelham 123”.

“The Taking of Pelham 123” begins for subway dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) much like any other normal day; however, as Walter soon discovers this day will be far from normal. When a violent group of criminals, led by a seriously deranged man named Ryder (John Travolta), takes control of one of New York City’s subway cars, Garber gets stuck in the middle of a deadly game where lives can be lost with one wrong move. What started as just another day has now become a race against time to meet a madman’s ransom before innocent lives may be lost.

Well, I must admit, this movie really surprised me in a couple of ways, and not necessarily for the best. For starters, it was a much smaller, more intimate character drama than I had anticipated from the previews. I knew that it would be a thriller, so the intensity would obviously be ratcheted way up, but I didn’t foresee how narrow the majority of the movie’s focus would be. Now, that’s not a complaint implying that most of the movie was too small; on the contrary, I enjoyed that director Tony Scott moved away from the widespread action and mayhem that had permeated so many of his more recent movies (also not a complaint). Sometimes it’s just nice to see a director who is known for a certain type of movie, take a step back and deliver something outside of their perceived comfort zone. Generally, when this happens the results can be quite refreshing and intriguing, to say the least.

However, my second surprise came from the fact that despite being thoroughly entertained by the story for roughly 95% of the movie’s duration (as expected), the film’s confounding climax derailed the movie slightly, just before reaching its final destination. The tightly paced screenplay from writer Brian Helgeland (“Man on Fire”) was rife with tension, suspense, and drama; all of which provided the perfect recipe for an intriguing character drama, as I stated above. Yet, within the film’s conclusion and for that matter even during a few scenes prior, it becomes slightly overblown and ultimately perplexing. What makes this a problem for me is the fact that when this occurs this once taut thrill ride begins to resemble just another action film (complete with an overdone crash sequence and an unrealistic chase scene) that doesn’t feel like it fits in with the rest of the movie.

What caused this problem to occur in this movie? I believe this is one of those instances where the director couldn’t leave well enough alone, and just had to include a big, and altogether unnecessary, action scene to complete his vision. I’m putting the blame mostly on director Tony Scott for this lack of judgment, although to be fair I’m sure these trouble spots were included in Helgeland’s screenplay (perhaps at the behest of Scott, who knows). Whatever the cause, Tony Scott knows how to make great movies, and should have known better than to hinder a potentially great thriller with needless action movie set pieces.

Despite the complaint I just finished leveling at director Tony Scott, I do feel that he was a very solid choice for helming this movie. His hyper-kinetic visual style is perfectly suited to the kind of fast-paced thriller that Brian Helgeland’s script demanded. Thankfully, Tony chose not to include all the washed out colors, pops of bright white across the screen, and various other camera filters and tricks that have been so heavily used in some of his recent work (i.e. “Man on Fire”). Even though I enjoyed the movies where Tony used what he calls his “shooting on acid” style, it was beginning to become somewhat distracting for me as the viewer, especially in his film “Domino”.

Tony’s more straight-forward approach to filming (which is reminiscent of his work on “Enemy of the State”), meaning without all the weird filters and such, is far less jarring. That’s not to say that this film’s camera work is completely static and boring. After all, we are talking about Tony Scott, so as one would expect the movie is chock full of quick cuts, almost constant camera movement, and even some moments of slow-motion, freeze frames, and fast-forwards. One thing is for sure, if you’re going to watch a Tony Scott film, you’re almost always guaranteed to be in for a visually interesting experience.

One area where the film definitely comes through is in the casting of the two lead characters. In the role of the story’s protagonist, as anyone who has seen the preview should have deduced, is audience favorite Denzel Washington, taking over the role previously portrayed by screen legend Walter Matthau in the 1974 original. Denzel plays Walter Garber, a man beaten down by a thankless job, who is struggling to survive in a world that waits for no one. It’s a part that could have been played with far less believability by some actors of Denzel’s stature, but as always Denzel delivers yet another solid performance. Unlike some of his past roles, Walter is a far less confident man than what some have come to expect Denzel to portray. While Walter may not exude authority and command the respect that other Denzel characters have before; there is a quiet strength inherent in the character that connects with the audience and fills Garber with a steely resolve to see this ordeal through to its conclusion.

The other lead actor in this film is the ever-reliable John Travolta (“Face/Off”), in yet another scene stealing villainous role. As the lead hijacker, Ryder, Travolta proves once again why he is generally a perfect choice for a cinematic villain. One moment he will be extremely charismatic and almost likeable, but in a split-second he will simply snap, becoming completely unhinged and unpredictable. So many actors struggle to break a good guy image once it’s been solidified in the public’s mindset; however, Travolta is one of the rare examples in which he has been able to successfully transition back and forth between good and evil roles without issue. Some critics argue that John’s villains tend to feel over-exaggerated due to some over-acting on his part. I tend to disagree with this sentiment, at least in this instance (“Battlefield Earth” on the other hand…). I think some critics perhaps mistake this character’s almost bi-polar personality for over-acting, when in reality it is simply a drastic shift in his character’s emotional composition. In my humble opinion, I believe John Travolta delivered another top-notch villainous performance that audiences will love to hate.

In the supporting roles are some very talented, and always dependable actors such as, John Turturro (“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”), James Gandolfini (TV’s “The Sopranos”), and Luis Guzman (“The Count of Monte Cristo”). John Turturro is given a much more serious, no-nonsense role this time around as opposed to the off-kilter, eccentric character he’s more recently been associated with in the two “Transformers” movies. With John’s character he could have easily remained very cold and one-dimensional; instead, he played him as a very empathetic man who loves his job and always wants to do what’s right, not just what’s convenient for those in power. With that conviction there is also a clear sense that Turturro’s character feels somewhat betrayed by the job and perhaps even by the city he protects. It’s a surprisingly more conflicted role than one would expect, and not surprisingly John handles it all with great ease.

I mentioned a moment ago that James Gandolfini and Luis Guzman were two of the other supporting cast members, but unlike John Turturro their roles were far less interesting. Truthfully, I can’t for the life of me understand why the casting director chose to waste two very good actors on essentially throwaway roles. As the mayor of New York City, James Gandolfini appears bored and unenthusiastic, but who can blame him when the role is so bland and generic. As for Luis Guzman, this terrific character actor is placed in a bit part as one of Travolta’s henchmen; however, he’s given so little to do within the story that you can’t help but wonder why he even signed on for this movie.

Perhaps it was the opportunity to get to work with Denzel Washington, John Travolta or director Tony Scott that drove those two actors to participate in thankless roles. Whatever the case may be, it is too bad more couldn’t have been done to make their characters more interesting or important to the overall story.

“The Taking of Pelham 123” has all the makings of an incredibly relentless thrill ride, but some ill-fated decisions in the latter moments of the movie slightly derailed my enjoyment of the experience. All things considered, “Pelham” is still an entertaining movie, it’s just got some problems that cause it to stumble to conclusion rather than roll along smoothly.

“The Taking of Pelham 123” is rated R for violence and pervasive language.

Due to the great success from parlaying their Transformers toy line and various animated series’ into box office gold, it was only a matter of time before toymaker Hasbro decided to try their luck with yet another of their long-standing toy brands, namely G.I. Joe. However, unlike the overwhelming sense of excitement I had when I saw the various trailers for both of the “Transformers” films, not to mention the actual films themselves; those heralding the forthcoming release of “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” were severely underwhelming to say the least. Despite a low amount of interest in the movie, I did finally get around to seeing it recently. Not surprisingly, much like my reaction to the film’s trailers which were steeped in great disappointment; the actual experience of the movie itself was nothing short of an utter disaster, just on a much bigger scale than even I had anticipated.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is essentially summed up by the title. Basically, an evil organization known as Cobra is attempting to become one of the deadliest terrorist cells on the planet. After a dangerous new weapon falls into Cobra’s hands the world has only one hope for survival…G.I. Joe. A powerful covert military group, G.I. Joe is comprised of the very best operatives this world has ever seen, and when all else fails, they don’t.

Well, whenever a movie is this unabashedly bad the number of complaints that one can level against it can be quite staggering. Don’t worry, I’ll do my best to not bore you by listing every single one of them, but I will touch upon numerous problems along the way. So, the best thing to do is to just start at the backbone for the movie’s failures… the story.

The screenplay from writers Stuart Beattie (“30 Days of Night”) and David Elliot & Paul Lovett (“Four Brothers”), all of whom have written far better films than this one, goes wrong in almost every way imaginable. Since the troubled areas for this movie’s story are virtually all-encompassing, one could easily surmise that the writers never wanted to pen the movie in the first place. To be honest, if someone did have that thought (which I did), I don’t honestly believe you would be that far from the truth.

For a movie based on a continually successful toy line and an animated series that shaped many a child of the 80’s, I was extremely disappointed in the paint by numbers approach the story took. The entire film felt like the writers were simply ticking off items on a checklist; for example, working in numerous classic lines of dialogue from the animated series (which sound extremely cheesy nowadays)… check, vehicles… check, iconic characters… check, and borrowing ideas from movies ten times better than this one… check. The problem with this approach is that none of it ever gelled in a natural fashion; instead, it all felt shoe-horned into the story to meet some sort of quota of G.I. Joe references and affiliations. Honestly, if more time had been spent on polishing up the dialogue, building up character development, and creating an actually interesting plot, then perhaps “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” could have been an entertaining movie, or at least had the potential to be one.

The cast for this film was sub-par at best, which is sad when you realize that it was comprised of several very talented actors and actresses. Together this assemblage of assorted talents should have been able to offer up something better than what was put up on the screen, regardless of the irredeemable script. However, the majority of the cast members’ performances felt stilted and uninspired, which by no means elevated the movie’s already low entertainment value.

Then there’s the fact that I found myself surprised by certain actors’ presence in a movie so obviously inferior to some of their previous films. For those that are curious, the cast members I was most disappointed in were Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who has proven himself to be quite the talented actor with intensely dramatic roles in films such as “The Lookout”), Dennis Quaid (who apparently was in dire need of a paycheck is my guess), and Channing Tatum (whose role in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” earned him critical notice at Sundance Film Festival). These three actors, and a few others I didn’t mention, all should have known better than to sign on to this movie. To make matters worse, most of the cast members, including the aforementioned, have signed for sequels, so they are stuck for the foreseeable future in what looks to be a horribly ill-conceived franchise.

On the other hand, some of the other cast members I wasn’t as disappointed in, for various reasons. Comedian and actor Marlon Wayans (“Scary Movie”) does his level best to provide as many comedic moments in the movie as humanly possible, most likely in some doomed attempt to distract from the idiocy occurring everywhere else in the film. The problems with Marlon’s character of Ripcord were numerous, but a couple of them would be the fact that his humor fell flat almost 90% of the time and the only real similarity this incarnation shares with his animated counterpart is the fact that he’s an accomplished pilot. The reason Marlon didn’t disappoint me was because I had no real expectations for him. I mean, consider his body of work, there’s not much there to really be proud of, in my opinion.

As for the actresses in the film, Sienna Miller (“Stardust”) and Rachel Nichols (“Star Trek”) added very little to the story other than the obvious eye candy for the predominantly male audience. I can say this about the two female leads, while their performances weren’t impressive, they did excel in the aforementioned area that their presence was geared towards from the get-go. So at least in that respect, they did not disappoint either.

Lastly, Ray Park’s character of Snake Eyes was the sole member of the cast of characters that I was actually intrigued by. What makes this kind of humorous to me is the fact that he is never given any lines to speak; which is probably what allowed him to remain interesting. I almost feel sorry for Ray Park, because yet again his prowess with weapons and martial arts are the only reasons he was even included in the cast (other examples of this would be “Star Wars – Episode I: The Phantom Menace” and “Sleepy Hollow”). If this were the silent era of films the man could be one of the biggest stars in Hollywood rather than a glorified stuntman. You know, if the acting gigs ever dry up, perhaps he should consider becoming a mime. Then if someone didn’t pay enough attention to him he could beat the snot out of them. Seems like a plausible scenario to me.

Even though my expectations for this film were low from the very beginning, I thought that at least the movie’s visual effects would stand some chance of impressing me. My belief that because the film was being directed by Stephen Sommers (“The Mummy”), that the movie’s effects would be solid throughout was completely misplaced. I knew that from the previews a few of the scenes looked a little on the weaker side, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt on the off-chance that perhaps these were early cuts of the scenes that hadn’t been fully finished at the time. However, shortly into my viewing of this movie I became well aware that much like the rest of the experience; the CGI would also prove to be an area of extreme weakness.

The film utilized multiple effects houses, as is often the case with big budget blockbusters, so pinpointing one effects house as the source of the film’s visual shortcomings is difficult. However, from what I can gather, it does appear that Digital Domain has been tagged as being responsible for the lion’s share of the work in the film. That being the case, I feel it’s only fair for me to hold them accountable for the majority of the abhorrently bad visual effects.

What makes this failure on the part of Digital Domain even more shocking, in my mind, is the fact that their body of work has been downright stunning in past films. For example, they took part in some of the recent summer blockbusters; such as “Star Trek” and “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”. So, my question Digital Domain is this, “What went so horribly wrong with your work on this film?” One visual effects trouble-spot was whenever CGI stunt doubles were being used. The lack of weight in their movements made them stand out like a sore thumb, and left me frustrated with just how unrealistic they appeared. Other problematic areas would be most of the shots involving various G.I. Joe or Cobra vehicles in action or completely CGI created set pieces that lacked any sense of realism. What this all boils down to is that almost every single visual effects shot in this film looked shoddy, and in my opinion there is just no excuse for this to be allowed given the capabilities we see on display in movies these days.

So, what did I take away from this experience? Not a whole lot, aside from a newfound understanding of just how ridiculous some of those classic lines from the animated series really were or that the name G.I. Joe makes me laugh due to how comical it sounds. But seriously, this movie is a poor excuse for a summer blockbuster, and the fact that it can’t even qualify as a guilty pleasure speaks volumes to just how horrible this movie is.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

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.

Apparently it’s impossible to keep a masked homicidal maniac down. Despite being shot numerous times at point blank range (“Halloween”), engulfed in a raging inferno (“Halloween 2”), and stabbed multiple times before eventually losing his head (“Halloween H20”); it seems that nothing can stop Michael Myers from partaking in his favorite trick-or-treating past time… murder. Five years after “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” appeared to bring the franchise to a satisfying close, Michael has returned for more All Hallows’ Eve mayhem in “Halloween: Resurrection”.

“Halloween: Resurrection” finds Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) locked away in a psychiatric hospital after the events of the previous film. All appearances to the contrary, Laurie is not as disturbed as she lets on, but is merely biding her time as she awaits her brother’s inevitable return. Meanwhile, back in Haddonfield a reality TV show is taking place with six teenagers being asked to spend one night in the childhood home of Michael Myers. What was intended to be a major ratings bonanza for the show courtesy of some cheaply staged scares and urban legends run amok, turns into a night of terror when Michael finally comes back home.

Let’s take a moment to break down the quality of the “Halloween” franchise, albeit only recognizing those movies included in the generally accepted continuity. The first film was innovative in its methods and overall execution, not to mention it created an entire sub-genre of film; although it did contain some weak points courtesy of hit-and-miss character development and dialogue. Number two amplifies the problems from the first film, while at the same time replacing genuine scares with too much gore. Skip ahead 17 years after “Halloween 2” and “H20” does its level best to correct the past mistakes of the series in an attempt to recapture the essence of the original; plus, it supposedly gives fans a satisfactory ending to the series’ 20-year long storyline.

In summation, we find that the first and third movies in the established continuity are good, but the second by comparison could be considered bad. So, if one believes that history can, and will, repeat itself, then one could easily presume that the next film in the series will also be bad. Now, I’m sure you’re all wondering, “Does history repeat itself within this franchise?” The answer is… Yes, I believe it does.

Trust me when I say that going into this movie I did try my best to keep an open mind about the prospect of another installment despite the fact that the series felt resolved. Mostly I was curious to see how the “creative” minds behind this series were going to prove Michael Myers un-killable, at least permanently, this time around (hence the subtitle of the film).

Surprisingly the story for this installment, written by Larry Brand (“The Right Temptation”) and Sean Hood (“The Crow: Wicked Prayer”), did seem to show some promising signs that perhaps the audience would be in store for a good movie. The concept of once again creating that voyeuristic feel to the proceedings via webcams, rather than the first-person viewpoint of Michael, was for all intents and purposes intriguing. Even though the reasoning for Michael still being alive after the last film was a little too convenient for my tastes; the result of this retcon (retroactive continuity) to “H20” had potential for yet another exciting showdown between brother and sister. Alas, as is so often the case with horror franchises that have dragged on for far too long, the chances of having yet another “good” installment becomes more and more fleeting.

While some plot points could have been interesting if handled properly, the end result was nothing more than a boring exercise in by-the-book horror filmmaking. The online reality show set in Michael’s house was made completely annoying due to the fact that almost every single character was written to be as irritating as humanly possible. Although there was one tolerable character named Sara (Bianca Kajlich), her role was ruined by some inexplicable character quirks that should not have been left unexplained. At almost every turn, the writers squandered countless opportunities for character development within the story. Instead, they opted to introduce more and more character ticks and/or flaws to make them seem more fascinating, but without the use of helpful exposition the writers were never able to fully sell these eccentricities to the audience.

Then there’s the issue, or should I say issues, surrounding the retcon of the closing moments from “H20”. As I stated earlier, this modification to the story did present a potentially engaging twist; however, when all’s said and done, the change just felt like a sad excuse to keep the franchise going. The retcon also enabled a return appearance by Jamie Lee as Laurie, although this proved to be little more than a disappointing cameo that had no real significant impact on the overall story for the film. Truth be told, the series would have been better off had it ended after the conclusion of the previous movie. At least then the fans would have been satisfied with the series’ finale; instead of being left with this poorly executed attempt at a follow-up.

Continuing the trend of weakness that permeates almost every inch of this film is the cast of actors and actresses assembled to annoy audiences to seemingly no end. Honestly, there are no real standouts in the movie to speak of, I mean, there are a couple of decent performances (one of them I mentioned earlier), but nothing to get excited over. To be fair I will elaborate a little further on Bianca Kajlich’s performance, along with touching on the shameless appearance by Jamie Lee Curtis, and lastly, chastise the casting of rappers and/or models that cannot act to save their lives.

In what comes as close to the starring role as one could get in this horror movie ensemble is actress Bianca Kajlich (TV’s “Rules of Engagement”). Throughout her performance there were moments where Bianca shined, displaying a sincerity and innocence that hadn’t been seen in the series since the first film. However, some oddities about her character that never get explained and a generally uninteresting story arc overshadow anything positive that she could have accomplished in the role.

As for Jamie Lee’s part in the film, can anyone say “stunt casting”? Her portion of the movie was the biggest waste of time out of the entire duration. Granted the reason for her story’s occurrence is vital to the continuation of the series; even with that, one cannot deny that the end result feels like an insult to everything the previous film achieved. At least I can say that Jamie Lee was given more to do in this glorified cameo than the entirety of her role in the dismal “Halloween 2”. Jamie Lee should have been wise enough to just say “No” to this movie, and maybe the series would have ended on a high note rather than in despondency. For those not aware, “Halloween: Resurrection” is for all intents and purposes the final installment in the original franchise; a reboot of the series began in 2007 under the direction of Rob Zombie (“The Devil’s Rejects”).

Last, and definitely least of all, are the talent-less performers (in terms of acting), Busta Rhymes (“Shaft”) and Tyra Banks (“Coyote Ugly”). For the most part, I am not a fan of rappers turned actors, I don’t think they have the chops to play with the big boys, so to speak. I will admit that there are some exceptions that could be found. So, perhaps I should say most gangsta rappers shouldn’t be considered for movie roles, even for something as inane as a horror film. The problem with Busta Rhymes was that he was so over-the-top in his delivery, that it was obvious he was just playing a slightly caricaturized version of himself. Of course, there’s also his character’s obsession with all things martial arts and his apparent skill with that obsession that seemed a little unusual and frankly, unbelievable. Some screenwriters need to learn that adding character quirks does not equal instant character development or generate further interest from the audience.

Models on the other hand are not necessarily as limited in range as the previous grouping, but that’s not to say that all of them need to find their way onto a movie set either. Tyra Banks’ performance in the film, much like Busta Rhymes, seemed to be an exaggerated impersonation of her celebrity persona. Her portrayal was much livelier than Busta’s, and her dialogue didn’t appear to be nearly as limited to slang. Still, I never really believed her in the role, she just didn’t seem tenacious enough to be in the position of power she found herself in. I hope that this movie will mark the final time she is ever considered for a part in a movie, even if the role is that of a model.

“Halloween: Resurrection” not only lessened the impact of the previous film on the series, but also wasted any and all opportunities to capitalize on the retconning that occurred early on in this film. Jam-packed with annoying characters, hackneyed set-ups and dialogue, and let’s not forget an overbearing sense of predictability; this sequel is just another shameless attempt to cash in on a franchise that has apparently lost every shred of quality and entertainment value.

As an interesting side note, the director of this film, Rick Rosenthal, just so happened to be the director of the ill-conceived “Halloween 2”. What are the odds that the same director would be responsible for the weakest installments in the official continuity of the series? Apparently, the odds are quite good, much to the audiences’ dismay.

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

Following the original “Halloween” from director John Carpenter in 1978, this franchise had for all intents and purposes succumbed to the very same pratfalls that have befallen virtually every other horror franchise in existence. What this means is that the series that birthed the very sub-genre it exists within had become nothing more than another lame slasher franchise cranking out useless sequel after sequel, paying little attention to the fact that the stories were fast becoming old and tired.

In 1995, after the sixth film in the series massively disappointed audiences, the future for the franchise no doubt lay in question. Not to mention, the impending twentieth anniversary of the original “Halloween” loomed on the horizon, and it was looking as if the date would be remembered with little to no fanfare. However, all of that changed in the summer of 1998, when original star Jamie Lee Curtis reprised her role of Laurie Strode for the seventh installment in the series, “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later”.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is essentially summed up by the title. Basically, 20 years after the terrible events that victimized Laurie Strode, she continues to live in fear of the possibility that one day her killer brother may finally find her. Living under assumed names, Laurie and her 17-year-old son (Josh Hartnett) are doing their best to keep their dark family secret buried, while carrying on with some semblance of a normal life. However, some secrets are too powerful to be kept hidden forever, and Michael is determined to finish what he started all those years ago.

Over the course of the 17 year gap that separates “Halloween 2” and “Halloween H20” there was numerous other installments released as a part of the franchise. With the release of “H20” all of the sequels beyond the second movie have been omitted from the series’ accepted continuity. For those who are curious, the reason is that movies 3 through 6 did not feature Jamie Lee Curtis or her character Laurie Strode; instead, the focus shifted to Laurie’s orphaned daughter (apparently Laurie died in a car wreck or something like that) who is now being hunted by her dear old Uncle Michael. Even though some plot threads from those previous films were somewhat promising; in the end, it was easier to disregard them for the story in “H20” rather than to rewrite some of the history. While all of this was not incredibly important, I did feel that some exposition was needed for those who may not be aware of why the plots from movies 3 through 6 are never even touched upon, and in fact, most are contradicted by events in “Halloween H20”. Anyways, that’s a basic rundown on the history of the “Halloween” franchise.

If you ever watched any of the previous sequels, then you undoubtedly noticed that the quality of writing took a serious nose-dive from where the series began (which in itself wasn’t exactly brilliant from start to finish). Along with the massive slate cleaning that “H20” brought to the series, the writing for this sequel was much stronger than all of the previous installments thanks to screenwriters Robert Zappia (“Five Days to Midnight”) and Matt Greenberg (“Reign of Fire”), along with some re-writes by Kevin Williamson (“Scream”).

The overall plot for the film is relatively solid, albeit with a few head scratching moments as most horror movies tend to have, but more on that later. The story took a mature approach to the ramifications of that horrific Halloween night and how even after all this time Laurie still lives in fear of her brother’s possible return. Even though at first glance the premise that Michael has supposedly been waiting all this time to come after his sister once again seems a bit far-fetched; the manner in which that plot point was handled was surprisingly effective. I also appreciated the attempt to bring a potential resolution to the conflict set up so long ago between Laurie and Michael. If for no other reason, that portion of the story alone is worth watching for longtime fans of the original who have always wanted to see brother and sister come face-to-face once more.

It has become quite clear that the success of horror hits such as “Scream” or “I Know What You Did Last Summer” made an impact on the characters’ interactions in this film and almost any other horror films that have followed them. The banter, especially between the teenagers, is fast-paced and loaded with innuendo and pop culture references (as are most teenage conversations). I also noticed that when the adult characters were on the screen the slick, fairly well-written dialogue didn’t just disappear or become stale, as is so often the case; instead, it matured (without being too heavy-handed) to tackle the bigger issues that the adult characters, most notably Laurie, were facing throughout the movie.

Now, as I alluded to a moment ago, there were some weak spots in the story though. The biggest weakness this film had was with some of the characters. It seems that ever since “Halloween” started this sub-genre of horror that every other film of this kind must feature the same basic cast of characters in some form or another. You’ve got the rebellious guy, the smart girl, and the horny guy and his female equal, and so on and so forth. While this cast is smaller than many other horror films, it still fills most of the roles with standard stock characters. The only difference here is that in the case of Josh Hartnett and Michelle Williams, they actually appeared to be trying to bring some depth and realism to their characters; thus, serving to elevate their status above all the others in the pantheon of unoriginal character archetypes in horror films. But beyond those two, the rest of the teenaged characters were typical carbon copies left over from previous horror movies.

Another couple of issues with this film revolved around the improbability of how Michael either knows to be in certain places to kill someone or somehow catches up to a person running, despite the fact that he’s walking as slowly and methodically as possible. Those two faults are not exclusive to this series rather they are common issues in almost every single horror franchise in existence. It does not matter what horror franchise you look at, this is a problem area that is universal and has always irritated me. What I want to know is, “Why most directors choose to go along with this obvious absurdity?” And lastly, the pacing early on in the story was a little on the slow side. I enjoyed the opening moments of the film that served as a set-up for the remainder of the movie, but the 15 to 20 minutes that followed struggled to keep things going strong. Note to the writers of horror films, the key is to always keep the audience on edge, it worked for John Carpenter in 1978, and I’m willing to bet it still does even now.

As for the performances in this movie, let us begin by discussing the return of Jamie Lee Curtis to the role that made her into a household name. Jamie’s performance as Laurie is much more mature and refined here than it was in the original film, and let’s just forget about the colossal waste of time that summed up her appearance in the initial sequel. Jamie skillfully portrays the radical change in her character from a woman who continues to be victimized by her memories to a woman ready for a final showdown with her tormentor. From the quieter moments between mother and son, to her soul-bearing confession as to who she really is, to her inevitable moment of truth; Jamie Lee excels in every respect and the movie definitely benefits from her terrific return to the series.

In the supporting roles are mostly up-and-coming talents, although some of these talents are obviously stronger than others. Leading the way for the supporting cast members, as I noted earlier, are Josh Hartnett (“Pearl Harbor”) and Michelle Williams (“Brokeback Mountain”). Both appeared to be committed to their roles, not willing to sit idly by and just speak the lines and hit their marks in as uninspired a fashion as possible; instead, they opted to let their characters emotions and motivations shine through naturally. Plus, their characters’ onscreen chemistry seemed more genuine than most in horror franchises, resulting in their romantic relationship becoming more believable than one would expect.

Next, we have LL Cool J (TV’s “NCIS: Los Angeles”) as a mediocre security guard with lofty aspirations. LL has proven in several other projects since his role in this movie that he clearly has acting talent; however, in this role he is merely average. At times his portrayal seemed a little shaky as if he couldn’t quite get a handle on the character; however, this problem could be more a fault of the script than the actor in the role. Still, despite a potentially weak character arc, LL should have been able to do more with the role; instead, he seemed to rest on his laurels causing his performance to suffer as a result.

Bringing up the rear in the performance category are Jodi Lyn O’Keefe (“The Crow: Salvation”) and Adam Hann-Byrd (“Jumanji”) in the heavily clichéd roles of the sex-crazed teenagers in the movie. Both roles are only included in the movie to fulfill some prerequisite that apparently stipulates that every horror film have at least one promiscuous couple within the cast. While almost every movie has one or two meaningless roles in their lineup, horror films always seem to make sure those roles are the most irritating to audiences; all the while, finding their way into more scenes than they deserve within the movie. I will admit that at least the writers seemed to attempt to flesh out Jodi and Adam’s characters. Yet an over-reliance on sexual puns and unoriginality within the roles overshadowed all efforts to elevate the characters above being anything more than typical throwaway horny teenagers.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is the first sequel in the franchise to even come close to rivaling the original in any respect. While the film is stronger in some areas than the first “Halloween”, it still never manages to recapture the atmosphere and style that was so integral to that one’s success. Until someone can either channel John Carpenter’s directing choices and abilities into another one of these installments or coax Carpenter into returning for another round, I doubt we’ll ever see a movie in this franchise reach the level of the first one.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is rated R for violence, language, and sensuality.

Three years after director John Carpenter’s low-budget horror film “Halloween” debuted in theaters, taking both Hollywood and audiences by surprise; the masked killer, Michael Myers, was back and ready to take another stab at the one that got away.

“Halloween 2” picks up immediately where the first film ended. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) has just lived through one of the most traumatic nights of her life and believes herself to be safe from any further harm. Sometimes though, appearances can be deceiving. For even though Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) shot Laurie’s would-be killer Michael Myers numerous times; somehow, the masked lunatic survived and managed to evade capture by the authorities. Now, as Laurie is taken to the local hospital, her seemingly unstoppable predator patiently bides his time, just waiting for the perfect moment to strike. With only Dr. Loomis and a handful of police officers and hospital workers standing between Michael and his quarry, Laurie’s night of terror may have only just begun.

I’ve heard it said many times in regards to the plethora of horror franchises, “This series (insert horror franchise of choice) would have been better off if it would have ended after number one.” Generally speaking this statement is fairly accurate. In fact, we could look at numerous horror franchises, and even some from other genres, to which this would apply. However, I will spare you my picks for that rather lengthy list, in order to discuss whether or not the burgeoning ‘Halloween’ franchise has been doomed to a place therein.

Penned by the returning writing and producing duo of John Carpenter and Debra Hill, the film takes us through the remaining hours of that terrifying night depicted in the original. Carpenter and Hill do their level best to retain that special something that made their first movie’s story work so well. Yet, despite their best efforts the film never really seems to grab hold in the way its predecessor did.

The dialogue was stronger in some places, but still suffered from an over-abundance of clichés (which now seems to be a horror movie tradition) and several moments of blandness. While the dialogue was somewhat improved, the suspenseful nature of the original was almost nowhere to be found, much to the chagrin of many a fan. Lastly, there is the obvious lack of character development that runs more or less across the board. This oversight in the story actually surprised me given that franchise originator John Carpenter co-wrote the script. I expected him of all people to continue trying to expand upon the characters he had created. Oddly enough, one of the characters that received some development (albeit ever so briefly touched upon and clumsily handled) is the killer himself, Michael Myers. Aside from that brief moment for Michael, character development was quite scant, and didn’t really seem to occur at all until the final half-hour or so of the movie.

Perhaps these problems were a result of the fact that John Carpenter has admitted on several occasions that he hadn’t really planned ahead for a second installment, and that he only intended to make just the one film. Although, to be honest his excuse has always seemed a little hard to believe when one considers the wide open ending of “Halloween”. Anyways, maybe there is some truth in his words, because it’s possible that John hadn’t really considered continuing the series beyond the first movie, and that any potential sequels were expected to be handled by someone else in every respect. If you think about it, crafting a story that follows a successful movie cannot be an easy task, no matter how talented the screenwriter may be. To make matters worse, having a screenplay that runs into a severe snag approximately halfway through the film isn’t exactly a confidence booster either.

Case in point, when the writer of a story, or in this case a screenplay, realizes that they do not have an ending for their narrative, this typically means that the movie should be a no-go. Yet, in this rare instance, the lack of resolution presented the screenwriters with a chance to deliver a surprising revelation that would provide the plot with a satisfying conclusion. The revelation, although ostracizing to some fans of the original due to the affect it had on the previous film’s story, resulted in the series having a much more intimate overall storyline than it would have had otherwise.

As for the film’s director, Rick Rosenthal was placed in the unenviable position of helming a follow-up to the very film that by all accounts created the sub-genre the series now exists within. To Rick’s credit he tried to recapture the look and feel of the first film via the use of long tracking shots throughout the various locales in the film, and numerous times placed us once more into the shoes of Michael Myers. For the most part, Rick did an admirable job, and it is during those times, listed a moment ago, that the movie really starts to work. However, even during this movie’s stronger moments there are still two key elements to the first film’s success that were noticeably absent from this one’s visual style.

First, there was the lack of subtlety in the scares and/or death scenes. The first film relied heavily on shadows and implication during these moments. By not showing as much of what was happening within the scene, the audience was then forced to imagine the events based on their sounds and shadows moving; thus, the audience’s own imaginations and fears could take over resulting in potentially bigger scares. As I said, with “Halloween 2” the subtlety is essentially gone; in its place, a higher body count and much more gore. Supposedly, the stylistic exchange of more gore for subtlety was a result of re-shoots courtesy of John Carpenter who reportedly wanted the film to be able to go toe-to-toe with its slasher film competition. Whatever the case may be, I feel the decision was detrimental to the end result. Frankly, I’m surprised that John Carpenter didn’t see that flaw in the decision himself.

The second stylistic element that was lacking, although “changed” is probably a more accurate wording, was having Michael Myers extremely visible throughout the entirety of the film. In the original, we had glimpses of Michael for a majority of the time, and were shown more of him near the end. Despite the fact that we already knowing what he looks like, that didn’t mean he needed to be more out in the open. Much of the fear Michael’s character evoked was a result of him sticking predominantly to the shadows. Once that factor is removed he was no longer as mysterious, or even frightening for that matter; instead, he was just another masked man with a knife trying to kill this one young woman that got away.

Speaking of the one that got away, Jamie Lee Curtis was made into a star with her portrayal of would-be victim Laurie Strode. Her performance in the original film was so much more mature than one would usually expect from a horror film character. Of course, the role made such a strong connection with the audience due to the surprising amount of character development that occurred over the course of the movie, a trait that is generally unheard of in horror. However, in this installment, Jamie’s character is reduced to nothing more than a nearly catatonic zombie; effectively wasting her talents as an actress, while doing virtually nothing to enhance the character of Laurie Strode and her involvement in the series. Honestly, it almost seemed as if Jamie was included in the film in order to ensure some star power to attract audiences and nothing else.

Once again leading the supporting cast members is Donald Pleasence as Michael’s former shrink Dr. Loomis. In the last film, Donald received nearly as much screen time and character development as Jamie Lee; thankfully, that was not the case here (in terms of character development, that is). The character of Dr. Loomis appeared to be stalling in terms of his development early on in the film, and for a moment Donald Pleasence looked as if he too was going to be another wasted talent in this picture. However, unlike with Jamie Lee, Loomis’ role became much more intriguing once the big revelation occurred within the story, and his obsession to stop Michael once and for all really kicked into high gear. Within the movie’s final half-hour Donald really began to sink his teeth into the role of Loomis, and the change in his character’s resolve and demeanor were very well conveyed throughout the closing moments of his performance.

The other supporting characters share many of the same attributes as their predecessors from the original; the only big difference is that this time most of the characters are in their early twenties to thirties rather than teenagers. That being said, their age doesn’t appear to have resulted in maturity for most of them. For instance, Leo Rossi’s (“Relentless”) character only seems to exist in the movie to fulfill the role of the horny teenager, but as an adult. Then, there’s Pamela Shoop who seems to have slightly more going on upstairs than Leo Rossi’s character, but not by much. Her role is to provide the obligatory, and completely gratuitous, nude scene so that young teenage males watching the movie won’t be disappointed. Lastly, there’s Lance Guest (“The Last Starfighter”) who aside from Jamie Lee appears to be the youngest member of the main cast of characters. Lance doesn’t give much of a noteworthy performance, but he is clearly trying to make his character more interesting than just a carbon copy of what’s come before. Overall, the supporting cast, Donald Pleasence excluded, were as pointless in their existence as those of the original and maybe even more so.

It was quite clear from the get-go that this particular follow-up was not going to come anywhere close to matching the quality of “Halloween”. While the movie is plagued by more problems than the first film; there were still moments where it did shine (mostly when it was emulating the stronger elements of its predecessor). In the end, “Halloween 2” is a below average sequel that doesn’t completely doom the series, but any more problems and it would have been a different story.

“Halloween 2” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

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.

“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.

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.