SEVENTH SON

Father Gregory (Jeff Bridges) is having a difficult day.

Seventh Son
Starring Jeff Bridges, Ben Barnes, Julianne Moore, Kit Harrington, Alicia Vikandor
Written by Steven Knight, Charles Leavitt
Based on the novels 'The Spook's Apprentice' by Joseph Delaney
Directed by Sergei Bordov
2015, 102 mins., Rated PG-13

Not long after Peter Jackson made sword and sorcery(ish) epics cool with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, I was in the camp of folks who thought that all types of films like those -- with wizards, dragons, monsters, eclipse Armageddons, gods, etc. -- should be dark, serious, and above all, epic. Years later, when the Ray Harryhausen classic CLASH OF THE TITANS was remade with Sam Worthington as Perseus and Liam Neeson as Zeus and one killer kick-ass Kraken, I went in with the expectation the material would be handled seriously, and the movie would be amazing. I was wrong on both accounts. CLASH OF THE TITANS, the remake, was all about action. Gravitas and nuance was third to action and special effects. Nothing mattered other than making things look cool. For me, it was a devastating missed opportunity. 

I say all this, because that hard blow in many ways made films like SEVENTH SON easier to swallow and accept instead of being hit with overwhelming disappointment. Up front, I'll mention that I never read the books this film is sourced from, but if I were a fan of those novels, I imagine this adaptation would be quite the disservice. Probably DRAGONBALL: EVOLUTION level of terribleness. A lot of this feels extremely loosely based off the series. But that's beside the point. The point is this: I look at SEVENTH SON as a wonderful, playful throwback to the sixties and seventies, when we had action/adventure fantasy movies. Specifically, I'm thinking of the SINBAD trilogy. SEVENTH SON is a homage to those type of flicks -- or rather, it would fit so well into those classification of movies of that time period. It's just fun. A paint-by-the-numbers plot with largely unimpressionable characters and so-so special effects. They're not trying for serious, or epic, or anything necessarily great. Just sit back, have a good time, and enjoy this fantasy throwback to a time where these type of films were everywhere in cinema chains. 

SEVENTH SON has something to do with kids who are born the seventh son of a seventh son having abilities of some sort. Father Gregory (Bridges) is a old, wise(ish) wizard who recruits Tom (Barnes) to stop Malikin (Moore), a shape-shifting evil badass sorceress who intends on destroying the world and ruling it with her evil minions. Right about now is where the end tag announcer from the BATMAN '66 series would say, 'can Father Gregory and Tom beat Malikin in time? Will the earth be enslaved by monsters? Find out next week, same mage time, same mage channel!' Or something like that. 

To put it bluntly, no, SEVENTH SON is not a good movie. Acting is subpar, at best. Jeff Bridges is hardly comprehensible as Father Gregory, choosing an accented voice spoken through lips that seem sown together. Or perhaps it's his gigantamous beard and facial hair that's blocking the words from escaping his mouth. Either way, there really oughta be a subtitle option when he's speaking. No doubt about it, this is a paycheck gig for Jeff Bridges, and his performance reflects that commitment. Ben Barnes was really impressive in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN, channeling the right amount of princely valor, charm, and acting talent. Here, there's not a ounce of that skill on display. He lumbers through each scene, makes out with a hot chick (in the most entertaining subplot of the film, mage & witch love: can they be together when one's a hunter and one's the thing they hunt?), and resorts to a dead plan, dead-eyed glaze. As a hugely underdeveloped badass witch, Julianne Moore's Malikin fares the best, but only because she hams up the screen so totally committed, it's spectacular to watch. She's having fun, and I'm having fun right there with her. 

The script could use, at minimum, ten more drafts. Iron out details about this world's rules, creatures, and words, improve the dialogue, and just improve the basic framework of the movie at least. All this 'seventh son' business is explained in one throwaway line, but it would be mighty preferable for some time devoted to explaining the mystical power behind it. Backstory and histories are brought up very late in the game, adding little emotional value to certain scenes when, if such details were revealed earlier, it would have helped considerably. The relationships between Father Gregory and Milikan, and Tom and (witch) Alice (Vikandor) are awkward at best, and could use refining to spice up their scenes, perhaps make up for the lack of chemistry between any of these actors. 

For me, the real highlight of SEVENTH SON, and the aspect that makes me the most giddy, are the monsters. Look at the photo above, Father Gregory face to face with this giant green lizard creature (played by Djimon Honsou in human form). That's the type of cool shit a monster-loving fan like myself has a field day over. And check out the photo below, with the four-armed badass ready to take down some opponents. For years I've watched ambitious yet poorly down battles of the protagonist vs. multi-limbed monster variety, and they've been disappointing. Not SEVENTH SON. No. These fights are spectacular. Those arms work in perfect unison, and the fight choreography with all four is expedient and lethal. Finally, the four-armed foe realized in all of his magnificent glory!

Ultimately, if one does enjoy those sword-and-sorcery fantasy epics from the sixties and seventies, and walk into SEVENTH SON with that mindset, the film's a blast. It really, properly is. If you go in with the mentality that this is a $95 million dollar movie produced with the intent of being something like 'the next big thing' with glamorous special effects and a built-in fanbase with the hopes and dreams of a multi-film franchise deal hanging in the balance, than this movie is quite the clusterfrak. For all its poor writing, incomprehensible performances, and occasionally lavish special effects, SEVENTH SON is fun. As it's now out of the theatrical circuit, give it a look-see when it hits DVD/Blu-Ray. For me, this was a fun, nostalgic trip to a time long ago when fantasy adventures were all the rage.

RUN ALL NIGHT

Run All Night
Starring Liam Neeson, Ed Harris, Joel Kinnaman, Boyd Holbrook
Written by Brad Ingelsby
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

In the last five years, Liam Neeson's THE GREY is his best, most nuanced, most accomplished role since he broke 'big' with action films once TAKEN took off. TAKEN 2 and 3 were just disasters of mediocre movie-making and unenthusiastic deliveries by Neeson. Haven't seen A WALK AMONG THE TOMBSTONES, so can't comment if that was a marked improvement, but I can say that RUN ALL NIGHT is.

To clarify, RUN ALL NIGHT isn't a deep movie, nor altogether a return to the 'glory days' (aka six or so years ago) of Liam Neeson being a bona fide action star, but it's a mark in the right direction. It gives Neeson his juiciest material to work with in years as a character torn between his loyalties to his best friend of several decades and his duty to his flesh and blood. Of course he will always choose his son, Michael, and he will do whatever necessary to save him (Neeson's characters are always quite skilled at protecting family members), but to have that extra layer of kinship - hell, brotherhood - with the villain of the story? That right there adds some much needed drama and dimension to action movies that have become rather thin of everything as of late.

RUN ALL NIGHT has Neeson as Jimmy (lame name, folks, but gives him the Common Man vibe; a Common Man who also just happens to have a particular set of skills . . .), a drunk lowlife ex-super killer for his buddy and non-blood brotha Shawn (Harris). They're best of mates until a series of absurd coincidences forces Jimmy to kill Shawn's son to save his own. Thus begins the longest night of their lives, as these two families cause mass havoc in the streets of New York City with car chases, bathroom fista cuffs, and apartment explosions. And have to deal with the threat of sporadic rain!

Thing is, my one thumb up kudos for RUN ALL NIGHT is probably elevated because of the shit storm of subpar movies Qui-Gon's been in before. The fact that I'm watching this action movie that has fight scenes that I can actually comprehend, a story that actually tries, and characters of substance, well -- that just seems maverick compared to the rest of the similar titles of this litter. It's a fine film, highly competent, shot and lit with such moody dark blues and bright florescent vistas that it's actually rather impressive. The real heart of this whole thing is the Jimmy and Shawn relationship, where decades of brotherhood is dissolved due to familial duty and obligation. Blood has been shed, and the only way to rectify the situation is with blood.

It all culminates in a shootout in the woods, but the real ending is a rather tragic, low-key, quiet exchange of bullets and words at on the train tracks. It's a nice beat, two friends forced to this shit storm of death. Shawn and Jimmy even have a motto that's repeated at least four times throughout the movie, probably one of those things more seasoned screenwriters should probably skip, because it telegraphs the films trajectory immediately. There's two ways this movie could end, but throw that motto in there and now there's only really one way.

All in all, this was one run I was satisfied to partake in. A dark action thriller that works. If Neeson decided to hang up the action reins now, it'd be a good choice to end on (seriously, watching Neeson try to keep up or conduct the same maneuvers as his considerably younger costars was a bit sobering; his roles work best when he's a straightforward physical force, like a shark, picking out bad guys without much aerobics). Better this than a hypothetical-perhaps-soon-not-to-be-hypothetical TAKEN 4. Give RUN ALL NIGHT a go if you're a Liam Neeson fan like myself, but if you're looking for solid action spectacle, rent or blind buy Keanu Reeve's JOHN WICK instead.

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman & Robin [1997]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

 Batman & Robin

Some sixteen years later, and Batman & Robin is universally heralded as the Apocalypse of Batman, so, so, sooo bad that it beat the shit out of the franchise and left it dying on the ground. The horrible puns, the lame one liners, the beyond ridiculous script and gadgets and everything that encompasses this movie. Not one iota of the flick is considered even halfway decent by the fanbase and general critics alike. As for me, I think it all comes back to the feeling of Batman Forever - it depends entirely on how you enter the party.

Looking back at all four of the Original Movies (encompassing 1989-1997), we see the Dark Origin of the character, where the mysterious masked man dressed as a bat strikes fear into the hearts of Gotham's criminals and works with the police - in the shadows. And as Gotham enters a new generation, so does the dark knight, no longer secluded to the darkness and whispers of fearful bad guys, but a front and center symbol of justice. Gotham's icon, boasting incredible gadgetry and friends, stopping at nothing to save Gothamites. Enter Batman & Robin, the conclusion of Batman's 'journey'. No longer the instrument of fear, Batman is a celebrity, One of the People, and the manner in which his exploits are dramatized resort to humorous sound bites, sulty villains and one-liner villains, and a tongue-in-cheek tone that, 'hey, isn't this fun? Let's have an nifty adventure with all these cool new toys!' We've come full circle. Batman, the celebrity icon of the late 60's on television, now once again the crown prince of jocularity and bafoonery on the cinema screen.

Taking it in as a Batman fan who immerses himself in the world that Christopher Nolan realized and the dark and gritty graphic novels that celebrate the ambiguous, obsessed crime fighter, watching Batman & Robin is very, very difficult. So the only way for me to be okay with it, to not just hate on every second of the movie, is to recognize that the Batman brand evolved. At the time these were made, audiences didn't want a genuine character, or a genuine story of the man behind the mask or his motivations behind that life choice. They wanted a comic book, on the big screen. And that's exactly what they got.

But because this is Batman & Robin and thousands of words have been written on it in both a comical and serious manner, chronicling exactly how shitty the film is, I'm going to approach this review more in a bullet point, topic-like manner. So, let us begin:

* "You must be new in town. In Gotham, Batman and Robin save us. Even from plants and flowers." This is spoken to Poison Ivy before she becomes a insatiable vixen by a reporter, in response to Uma Thurman's plea to Bruce Wayne that action must be done to save Mother Earth (!). I dare say that this quote from the reporter just about sums up the entire tone of the film. It blatantly speaks to the duo's celebrity status, and considering that the woman is speaking with complete earnestness, it seems that plants and flowers as big bad's is just another day in the park in Gotham. More than that, it speaks volumes to a Gotham that is content with sitting back and letting Batman and Robin do all the work for them. They "save us", meaning that Gothamites - well, they don't seem to really make any effort to take care of themselves. So, corny line, but surprisingly lots can be taken from it.

* I'm perfectly fine with a character using a pun or two, or saying "freeze" a lot because his newly christened name is "Mr. Freeze", but there's a lot, and there's the amount Arnold Schwarrzzennegger says it. I (stupidly) didn't tally it all down, but I would not be surprised at all if the number of times "freeze" was said by Arnie's mouth alone would be in the hundred range.

* "What is Batman, if not an effort to master the chaos that sweeps our world? An attempt to control death itself." Oh my God, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman is actually trying to bring some sort of drama and pathos to Batman in this movie? Futile, but bravo Akiva for making the attempt. Still, it's a interesting way to look at the character. Batman making himself Master of Death, refusing to allow anyone to die on his watch. And in this universe, Batman isn't against killing, so there's a tad more credence to that. But still, how are we supposed to take Batman seriously in a movie that features this:

* George Clooney is a great Bruce Wayne. He has the charisma, that look of a billionaire playboy who couldn't give less of a shit about the city, and the New Random Girl to have his arms all over. But as Batman? Horrible, horrible casting. His face looks all freaky deaky as the Bats, and just not representative of the dark knight. That said, I need to recognize the tone change from Kilmer to Clooney, and then maybe I'll be okay with it. Outlook, not so good.

* Barbara Wilson? Alfred's niece? Okay....

* Speaking of Alfred, I'm beyond glad Goldsman gave the fantastic actor some genuine material to work with. I love how Barbara comes into the mix and tries to shame Bruce and Dick for having Alfred in this line of servitude, and Alfred's response later, that he has the greatest honor to serve heroes - that's tremendous writing and acting. Michael Gough really owns this movie, and makes it a far memorable experience than the goofy one liners and obvious action figure cash-ins.

* Horrible one-liners aside, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze were actually kinda fun villains. All pretense of being serious movie monsters was dropped, and Uma and Arnold where given free license to just ham it up and just go nuts. This makes for Uma's Poison Ivy to be the second most entertaining bad "person" of the Original Films. Bane, though, is a disgrace. It's insulting to the original intention of Bane, and it's an insult to all moviegoers. Even at the age of seven, I know for a fact - I was un-freakin'-amused.

* I could get into suit designs and how they're absolutely ridiculous (see pic below), but as we all know, they're all simply meant to be flashy, with absolutely no desire to think of them in a real world setting. They look the part, but they aren't really the part. Many have remarked that Schumacher designed the costumes to have similarities to Greek sculptures, make them akin to the heroes of the past, I take it. Then what might one gather from the pic below? Greek heroes changed outfits between one scene to another for a more splashy effect before they head back out in battle?

* Batman & Robin is a pretty shitty movie if you're coming to it from the viewpoint of someone who worships Batman Begins and everything Christopher Nolan has done for the saga (such as myself), but it helps - barely - to understand that the intent of this movie wasn't to be good, even. Which is a monumental shame. It's that aim which killed the Bat franchise for several years. The dark knight became a laughing stock, an embarrassment. We've reached the pinnacle of its 1960's cartoonish glory, and when it's resurrected eight years later, audiences and fans were treated with the pinnacle of Batman being Batman, for good. Just sad it had to come to this before we came to that.

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman [1989]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman (1989)

"I'm Batman" | At this point in Batman's career, two movies are in a continuous battle amongst fans as to which is the better: The Dark Knight (2008), Christopher Nolan's story that shattered box office expectations and proved to studios and audiences alike that superhero movies can be taken seriously, too, or Batman (1989), Tim Burton's take on the Caped Crusader which is applauded for its adherence to a dark tone and Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker. Hate to say it, but as a Batman fan, I've never really been too fond of Burton's original, and so it was with not a large amount of enthusiasm that I gave this flick another chance.

Perhaps abstinence made the heart grow fonder, but Batman was far a more interesting movie this time around, and a bit more enjoyable. I still have a few issues, which I'll get to presently, but for now I'll yabber in generalities.

Batman successfully captured the dark knight aspect of the legend, becoming a tale whispered by criminals in dimly lit street alleys or some unbelievable, mythic beast the Gotham Police Department simply shrug off as nonsense. So establishing Batman as something more than just a man, the screenwriters got it right, and Burton visually conveyed that beautifully (although I could do without so much blatant posing shots; really takes me out of the narrative) with him lurking in the shadows or hidden by mist. He's something elusive, and striking when he finally emerges from the darkness. So when criminals and the police finally see the Batman in all his black and yellow glory, their respective exclamations of "Oh my God!" have quite the ground.

They've also captured the detective aspect of Bruce Wayne, if only marginally, and (sorta) obsessive side (although I would call it more a inability to trust) as we see his video camera setup at his mansion. Only amount of detective work that goes on is Bruce in front of his computer looking at video files and old digitized computer clippings. Thankfully there's Batman: The Animated Series to remind me how the whole detective part of his character should be done. On a quasi-related topic, by films end Batman becomes, basically, an accomplice with the GPD, but never once is Batman considered anything more than a vigilante that needs to be caught at all costs - his sudden turn into the city's hero is far too...awkward.

We get to see many of Batman's really expensive and awesome gadgets and 'toys' to the point that the three year old in me still really, really, really wants to run at the nearest Toys 'R Us and pick me up some of his nifty thingymajiggies! But the most impressive weapon in Batman's arsenal is, I dare say, the Batmobile. If we're judging purely from an adaptation standpoint, the Batmobile is, perhaps, the most faithful from book to screen element in the whole movie [instead of going realistically, which the Tumbler fulfills quite neatly in the Nolanverse]. It's gorgeous to look at, slick, boasts one hell of an armor-y protective device, and has automatic pilot. So that's pretty damn nifty, but even moreso, the Batwing. My God, I don't think there's been a action figure I've wanted more lately [note: nah, I really wanted one of the Leviathan's from this year's Avengers movie]. With the Batwing's introduction in the Third Act to its firey end on the steps of the church, it's a beauty.

For a movie clocking in just a little over two hours, Batman moves along at a fast pace. The hero of the shadows is introduced within the opening minutes (after a magnificent credits sequence showcasing the emblem - score one for establishing fantastic atmosphere), Jack Napier soon after, and the plot gets rolling around the half hour mark. Just enough time to establish the primary characters and, perhaps the most important character of them all, Gotham City. Dark atmosphere, gorgeous, gothic landscape, the reclusive billionaire, a mysterious man-bat lurking in the shadows, crime bosses fried and lackies taking over - this world of Batman is fantastically realized, and major props to Tim Burton for having the vision to bring it all to life. It nearly makes me forgive his latest cinematic travesties (excluding Dark Shadows, me likie that).

Batman redefined the character for a whole generation, and for that I'm thankful (before the same franchise knocked it back down into Death's Door), and it's a very well done movie. There's just things that simply don't work for me, and, I guess, there's just not enough. More thoughts below...

Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman | Keaton's got Bruce Wayne and Batman down, ladies and gents. Now it's just a pity the script doesn't give him anything substantial to show his ability. As Bruce, Keaton channels the playboy persona effortlessly (although I could argue with myself over the little creaks in Bruce's armor, where that devil-may-care playboy vibe gives way to the tormented, obsessed individual underneath the facade), and gets his broody sulkiness on as a distressed Batman. When he dons the cape and cowl, Keaton is Batman. Sure, I'd like his costume to have real functionality and purpose like the Nolan movies gave it, but seeing as how this is nothing more than an adaptation, it looks fantastic, and Keaton really grabs the physicality of the character. The menace. The symbol. The dark.

Again, if only the script was superior, this would probably be Keaton's crowning achievement in his career. Fantastic work.

Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier/The Joker | Frankly, Jack Nicholson is Jack Nicholson. I don't see The Joker in his performance, and I never have. Or perhaps it's a consequence of Nicholson playing so many mentally off-their-knockers characters, that by this point I assume Nicholson is just a ego-maniacal looney. Either way, The Joker we see here has never impressed me, not as a portrayal, nor as a character, sorry to say.

Concerning the depiction of the Joker in this film, from a physical standpoint, I don't get it. Now, there's a very good chance this originates from the comics and it flew over my head, but I have nothing but venom for the way the Joker's smile is kind of etched into his skin, where it's a permanent smile. It's not creepy, not disconcerting, it's just ugly and cartoonish for a movie that is trying to be serious. This Joker isn't a representation of anything, there's no real purpose to him or driving factor - he really quite is some white faced gangster maniac who's tired of taking peoples bullshit and decides, for some unexplained reason, to go clown-y. Mentally, Napier is off his rocker, sure, so that accounts for his deranged psychology and iconic laugh, but externally, the reasoning behind the persona isn't explained - it's the comic trope of, 'he's just the bad guy named [this] just, y'know, because...'

Overall, obviously, Nicholson doesn't do it for me, and now having seen Ledger's work as the character, this is laughable as a result. But I appreciate that Burton and Nicholson grounded the Joker in the cinematic sense of reality, and that somehow, someway, his Joker has a profound effect on folks when they saw it for the first time. To me, I just don't...really see the Joker onscreen. I saw Jack Nicholson with face paint.

The Vicki Vale Effect | Bruce Wayne decides to let her in the 'know' and the Joker becomes fixated with her. But why her? I blame it largely on the script and not on the talent of Kim Basinger, but there's nothing attractive about Vicki. Hell, it certainly didn't seem like Wayne had much of a interest in her during their odd, awkward date at the mansion, and then Alfred decides that it's her, Vicki, the Woman Above All Others, that Wayne needs and lets in on the secret - just kind of absurd. The Joker's fascination with the woman can be explained away by his complete neuroses, but I just can't wrap by head around Wayne and Vale. There's nothing there, at least nothing the script offers. As a standalone character, independent of the men in her life, Vale actually is a strong, driven individual who, it seems, will do literally anything for the scoop (even though I'm pretty sure she didn't write one bloody article during the whole lifespan of the movie). So good character, just rubbishly used.

Gotham City | I just want to say, it was completely fantastic to see miniatures again! Last time I saw a miniature city that looked proper was, I'll say, 1998's GODZILLA, although I know ILM delved into some miniature work with the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, but that series is so over-laced with CG it's impossible to tell what was at one time real. Using outstanding miniature work, the visual effects crew and Burton collaborate to make a unique Gotham City, one that has a New York vibe but is entirely its own creature, from the type of people who walk the street, to the gothic, greek statues that overlook the streets and buildings - there's a culture there that's very Burton and very Gotham. Now, what Gotham becomes in the later films isn't all that flattering, but the sort of decaying, lumbering city that the Batman '89 crew realized is gorgeous. From an obnoxious nerdy standpoint, it's a tad frustrating that by building a city from the ground up, it forces space limitations to the type of visuals we get [shots tend to be more contained instead of vast and scope-y], but it's worth overlooking considering what's done right here.

The Score | Danny Elfman rarely impresses me, but task him with a superhero score, and he gives you something extraordinary and iconic. With Batman, Elfman delivers a theme to the dark knight that I will forever associate with the character. It's dark and brooding, but at the same time, heroic and full of action: absolutely exhilarating. Elfman's theme for Batman absolutely deserves to be up their with the classics, such as John Williams' themes for Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones and Jaws, or John Carpenter's Halloween, or Monty Norman's James Bond theme, etc. Basically, great, great score, and one of the very, very few times I'm actually happy to say the name "Danny Elfman."

I am not, however, a fan of Prince. And I am not a fan of Prince in Batman. Facepalm.

Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• Batman: "It's not exactly a "normal" world, is it?" This Gotham City as envisioned by Tim Burton is anything but normal, making Bruce Wayne's journey into Batman seeming much less crazy when compared to the environment he lives in. Perhaps that's what was intended with the character all along, constructing an environment from the ground up that it was only a natural consequence that something like the Batman would rise from the decay and corruption.
• Harvey Dent: "We've received a letter from Batman this morning. 'Please inform the citizens of Gotham that Gotham City has earned a rest from crime. But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city, call me'" Personally, this feels kind of out of character with everything set up prior to this. Before, Batman preferred to work in the shadows, do his own thing, strike fear into the hearts of Gotham's big bads, and wasn't exactly on the best of terms with the police department. Now, Batman entrusts them with this rather expensive piece of equipment to say, 'Look, I'm on your side, so give me a ring when trouble gets to be too much for you to handle, k?' Nah, doesn't work. 
• The Joker: "This town needs an enema." How true, Joker, how true. Quite possibly your best line yet, because of how relevant it is to Gotham City and Batman's quest.
• Batman kills people. This could harken back to the old, old days of comics when Batman always wore a gun or dispatched criminals not by a moral code, but by any means necessary (1939-1942). If that's what Burton and team were going for, then sure, this jives with character. But it's odd to see the Batmobile, with Batman driving, go into a giant factory where there's most likely loads of people still working and then blow it to kingdom come. At the very least, we know he blew up about six of the Joker's goons. And then it could be argued that Batman very consciously 'killed' the Joker by creating the means of his death. If we find Batman guilty of this, then Batman has been fueled by revenge, not a sense of justice or obsession to ensure that no kid on the streets of Gotham will lose their parents like he did. This goes back to my general feeling of, they captured the mood and style of Batman quite well, but lacked the essence of the character.
• Jack Napier is responsible for the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. I understand the rich dramatic tension it adds to the Batman/Joker scenes in the cathedral, and that origins are reworked constantly in both mediums, but this hits me wrong. There's something so...simple and in a weird way beautiful that their deaths were at the hand of a normal Gothamite. The connection now, just feels dishonest and clumsy. Anyone have different thoughts?

The Final Word | Having just revisited it, I surprisingly quite like Burton's Batman and even enjoyed parts ot it. That said, it's not a movie I fancy taking a look at frequently. For me, it doesn't grab me as either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight do - it doesn't have a narrative that engages the audience member, or the complexity of character, or hell, even the fun that Batman Forever offers - and that's fine, because this is it's own animal, and I respect that. So I'll summarize it down to this: Batman is the right type of movie for some people, but it ain't my type of Batman movie. It's good, but it ain't great. RATING: 7/10

Check back tomorrow for

BATMAN RETURNS

Top 22 Reasons I Love Amazing Spider-Man

The big Sony gamble of the year paid off quite well last week when they released The Amazing Spider-Man, the reboot to the Web Slinger instead of opting with a Spider-Man 4 which would have pitted Peter against the Volture. Now having seen Amazing Spider-Man a total of twice (and more to come, before The Dark Knight Rises), it's safe to say they made the right call, and I frakking loved it.

Instead of writing a long-winded review where I go nowhere, I instead decided to take a page out of a friend's book and instead write a review by a numerical pointing of what I loved from the film. Sure, I had some bits I didn't like and I, like many people, kept looking for scenes and dialogue from the trailers that never made it to the final cut, but this was a successful ride. If you wanna know why I love the film and look forward to this story continuing read on, otherwise I'd love to hear your opinions about the flick. Voice below! And enjoy!

____________________________________________

1. Andrew Garfield freakin' owns the role of Peter Parker and, for that matter, of Spider-Man without even breaking a sweat (although he does suffer injuries). He brings the right amount of charm in his moments with Gwen, sass with criminals, pathos in regards to the loss and regrets, and a overbearing sense of fun as he begins his web slinging journey. Simply stated, there is no other that could pull this off as well as Garfield; he was born for the role.

2. On a similar path, Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is fantastic. As a character, Gwen is intelligent and resourceful, never the damsel in distress. She has her own defined personality, her own look and style, and she's most definitely a match for Peter Parker, as Emma Stone is a perfect match for Andrew Garfield. Stone is the perfect Gwen, bringing enough of her own Emma-ness whilst servicing the character largely. This is relates to...

3. The chemistry of Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield sizzles through the movie. Sure, they're brilliant in their respective roles, but when they share the screen together, holy freakin' crap. Director Matthew Webb and the casting director hit the goldmine. Two specific scenes come to mind when I think about Stone and Garfield, the first being the hilariously (and accurately) awkward 'wanna do something?' conversation at school in the hallway around the halfway mark, and....

4. ...the big rooftop revelation scene. Garfield made me grin as Peter can't find the words to say what he needs to say to a frustrated Gwen, who begins to walk away, but in a impulsive move where actions speak larger than words, Peter uses his webbing and pulls Gwen back. In a state of shock, putting two and two together, Gwen and Peter share their first kiss. And it's one of the biggest, damnest 'awwwwww' moments of the entire trilogy, a fantastic character moment for both Gwen and Peter, a nuanced and comedic scene for Garfield and Stone, and just the right 'coming out' sequence the writers could possibly have come up with. Love, love, love it.

5. Spider-Man becomes human finally. By this, I mean in the Raimi movies, Spider-Man always felt like a hero, that there wasn't a person underneath that mask and that there was no jeopardy - Spidey would always get out of the sticky situations A-okay. Here, there was a real sense of danger and physical exertion, such as the riveting sequence as a wounded Spider-Man barely has the strength to climb a building [in Act Three] and limps into battle, unsure of victory, but damn sure gonna do whatever he can to stop the Lizard regardless....

6. Ben's death is wonderfully orchestrated. One of the big things I wasn't looking forward to with this trilogy reboot was being subjected to yet another 'poor Uncle Ben gets with the being shot and Peter gets angry and feels immensely guilty about the whole thing' beat by beat story. Instead, it's tastefully presented, and because of the manner in which it's approached, it feels brand new again.

7. After Ben's death, Flash Thompson chooses to confront Peter, and in a moment of insatiable anger, Peter pins Flash against the lockers, and in a beautiful moment that humanizes Flash instead of keeping him as a stock bully, he relates to Peter, saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry." It's a beautiful moment played by both parties, and a real sign above all else that this script cares about character just as much, if not more, than the action.

8. The use of Norman Osborne, as a presence in the movie but not a physical person, was inspired. It's Osborne's persistence in gaining this formula from Conners that pretty much sets up the events of the story. Furthermore, it's just as brilliant having Osborne in the background as a dying, desperate man. It would appear that Osborne is being setup as the big villain throughout the trilogy, and this could not have been a better way to establish him in this universe.

9. Peter's a science wiz, and finally, the movies captures Peter's genius status, and it's fantastic to see that brilliance come onscreen. To him developing the all-important equation to altering Oscorp Industries technology to suit his purposes, this is a Peter Parker who is intelligent and thinks everything through. I especially love the webbing Peter constructs in the sewer during his search for The Lizard - pure brilliance. This brings us to...

10. Spider-Man has web shooters again! I wasn't in the camp of people who were all, 'argh! His webbing originates from within his body, this is blasphemous!' But still, it's nice to see the technology-based web shooters come into play, and even more, gadgets conceived by Oscorp, but altered to Peter's specifications. Brilliance and awesomeness all in one.

11. James Horner delivers one amazing score. Ultimately, there are instances where I can't help but get a sort of Titanic vibe, but this wouldn't be the first time a veteran of the music industry tends to repeat themselves (here, I'm thinking specifically of John Williams, although I love that man, don't get me wrong, a lot of his later scores are very similar). Here Horner captures just the right amount of everything - the teen angst, the fun and dark side of discovering power, big battle scenes, and most importantly, what it means to be a hero. All of that is in the score, and I couldn't be happier.

12. In the category of discussing web shooters, I found the method in Spider-Man's slinging from building to building to be much improved and naturalistic. Even though Spider-Man himself felt more CG during those scenes, the reality of motion was more honest here than the Raimi trilogy, and that is an accomplishment well wroth noting.

13. The dinner scene with Peter and the Stacey family is, perhaps, the most important scene in the movie, and the one that firmly births Spider-Man, the "hero New York needs right now" [like it? I coined it from The Dark Knight ending monologue. Yep, brilliance, brilliance!]. Captain Stacey comments that Spider-Man's actions have all been directed towards a specific type of individual, that his motives aren't pure but driven by a state of revenge or desire, not justice. It's these comments that inspire Spider-Man, where everything clicks in his head and the pursuit of Ben's murderer takes the back burner and his mission as Spider-Man begins.

14. Speaking of dialogue, I have absolutely no qualms about the famous line "with great power, comes great responsibility" being dropped from the reboot, and I quite like the replacement speech Ben gives in its stead. Here it is, in full, I believe: "Your father lived by a philosophy, a principle really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things. That’s what’s at stake here. Not choice, responsibility. " It says all the necessary ingredients, but what I like best is the last line, which really resonates: Peter has no choice, he must be Spider-Man, because he can do those things that others can't. I apologize for geeks who were waiting for the famous line, but it's been so overused that it's exhausted and rather, dare I say, annoying. So kudos to the writers for inventing this.

15. Amazing Spider-Man does for Peter Parker what Batman Begins did for Bruce Wayne - we came to intimately care about the character and his journey, instead of just waiting impatiently for them to don the costume and mask and get to some crime fightin' ass kickin'. When Peter becomes Spider-Man, it's spectacular cinema to watch, but those forty-minutes of establishing the character of Peter Parker - who he is, what he stands for, his personality, his loss, his brilliance, his crushes, etc. - make the rest of the movie so much more important. And this is a lesson I hope is followed in 2013's Man of Steel, I need to fall in love with Superman, because as it stands, I'd rather just rewatch an episode of Smallville instead. But enough of that, this is Character Building 101, and although all this should seem obvious, it's not followed as often as one would think.

16. Just a fun one: these 20+ year old actors were convincing high school students. Not a single second of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst had me thinking, hey, these two are high school young. Negatory to that, my friends. But this....yeah, this is how it's done. Kudos to Garfield and Stone - again.

17. Perhaps one of the most important parts of any Spider-Man story is the presentation of the Spider-Man suit. Well, duh, really. And here, we're given a darker, leaner, slicker design, everything suited for practical use. Basically, I love it. Originally I interpreted it as a harsher design to give this series a edge over the more brightly colored and comic booky suit, but now, after seeing it in action, it's just perfect. Beautiful design, beautiful construction, all of it - love it.

18. Stacey's Final Words are heartbreaking - and yet, from a writing standpoint, creatively genius. Instead of Peter becoming mopey and realizing that the people he love will always be a target to those who want to destroy him, the dying man of the girl he loves and who he respects gives his (nonverbal) approval of his actions but requests the one impossible thing: leave Gwen out of this. And naturally, this leads to one hell of an emotional scene with Gwen and Peter in the rain, where every beautifully written word is fantastically delivered.

19. Spider-Man's sass is back! One of the trademark elements of Spider-Man's character is his inability to shut up in the face of bad guys and spout off hilarious wise cracks at often inappropriate times. There's tons of that, and I love the movie for that. Unfortunately, a bit of that attitude is already featured in Peter, so when Spidey gives fun commentary to, say, the car thief, it's not all too surprising because we expect it from Peter, but it's the level of fun that makes it all grin-worthy fun. Spidey's journey is that of responsibility, yeah, but at least the kid's having fun while doing it.

20. The Stan Lee cameo! Great use of a comic legend.

21. Peter saving the kid on the bridge. The mask. The relating from one person to another. The saving. The heroism. If someone watches this movie and fails to recognize their Spider-Man, there is no other scene that best captures the Web Slinger and his code and personality than this. Naysayers have my full permission (you're welcome) to diss the first forty minutes of character development, or the actors, or the special effects, or whatever you want, but this scene where Peter and the young boy talk is nothing short of perfect and inspired. This is Spider-Man, and he's here to stay.

22. The Raimi Trilogy was all about 'how do we bring this comic book to life?', and the Untold Story Trilogy is all about 'who is Peter Parker and who is he as Spider-Man?' The importance of the writers and team behind the new Spider-Man films concentrating their efforts on characters cannot be overstated. One trilogy brought a comic book to the big screen, this trilogy is bringing characters and choices to the big screen, and for that, Webb and James Vanderbilt deserve an enormous amount of handshaking and accolades. Whatever problems that come with The Amazing Spider-Man (of which there are) or whatever direction the next two movies take, this movie has so much right: it's about the characters.

____________________________________________

For these 22 reasons and a bunch more than I probably failed to mention, I love me The Amazing Spider-Man. I feel that Marc Webb and the creative team did something extraordinary in rejuvenating a franchise that already told an origin story and had three successful films. Boasting a talented cast and a strong screenplay that got so much right, it's safe to say that whatever sequel(s) they got planned, I'm already eagerly anticipating them - which is a far cry from my indifferent approach to this movie just a few short weeks ago.

Although, someone in the marketing department should be faulted for showing snippets of the (rather lameish) mid-credit sequence in the trailer. Disappointment.

I do have some problems with some parts of the movie, but my pleasure watching the movie outweighs its faults, so I won't dwell on them as much. But I do wish Sony and Webb hadn't exercised the Untold Story part of the narrative - the big selling point of this financial gamble. It's not entirely gone, there are story elements and shots that allude to the (probable) story that were left on the cutting room floor. Wherever Peter's story may go, I hope the same creative team - director, writers and all - are able to realize that singular vision. Because right now Spider-Man is in fantastic hands, and it'd be a pity for this franchise to follow the same pattern as, say, the Daniel Craig James Bond: extraordinarily brilliant first film and piece of rotten garbage second outing.

Anyway, 2014, get your ass over here pronto!

Battleship

Battleship

Directed by Peter Berg
Written by Jon & Erich Hoeber
Featuring Taylor Kistch, Liam Neeson, Rhianna, Alexander Skarsgard, Brooklyn Decker, Gregory D. Gadson. 131 mins., PG-13

Plot: When an alien invasion force threatens all of planet earth, only one battleship float betweens the salvation of mankind and its extermination – until the sequel, when it gets re-threatened.

Introduction

The trailers, those wonderful trailers. There’s circumstances where a well-cut together trailer can make even the most boring of movies sound utterly engaging, like you have to see it this blood second. Right off the bat, I’m thinking off the Doubt. And then there are trailers of flicks that look so ridiculously bad and unappealing, that a project you were once marginally intrigued by has suddenly become one of those Avoid At All cost releases. That’s pretty much Battleship. Now, the premise of military versus aliens ain’t something new, but I liked this take of it – the war at sea, the Navy being the first and only line of defense before shit gets really real. Sounded interesting, but the trailers made it look freakishly bland (freakish, because it’s an action movie, and action flicks at least should come across a tad ‘woah’) and I was slowly beginning to have a aversion to star Taylor Kitsch, who sadly didn’t wow me all that much with John Carter months earlier. Long sad story short, I was wrong. Battleship is all kinds of fun. It’s not clever and surprising like Mr. Whedon’s Avengers, but damn if it isn’t entertaining as hell, and shoots through the screen as a confidant action flick fully giddy at its premise and explosions.

Making Something Out of Nothing

There’s character development in Battleship. Go figure. That, my friends, is something I was not expecting. Alex Hopper (Kitsch) is a troublemaker, a dude who likes to spring into action without a thought of the consequences or much less a plan. That makes him irresistible to the ladies, but a huge pain in the ass for his brother Stone (Skarsgard) who tries his best to clean up Alex’s messes. Finally, enough is enough, and Stone forces Alex to enlist in the Navy, and even that level of orders and ‘yes, sir’’s don’t seem to make a dent in his skull. Enter the alien war. Nearly no one else is bothered with much work on character, but that’s all fine and dandy, because the writers have their hands full with Alex. One thing leads to another, and he’s thrown into the chair of command, and it’s growing up time. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just one of the reasons why I was quite impressed by this action film – because they bothered. Does the progression of Alex’s arc feel completely organic from start to finish? Not entirely, but they do a marvelous job at providing points for Alex to grow and mature, and for his new-found maturity and sense of purpose to shine, and that makes the scenes when horribly-rendered CG aliens aren’t crashing about watchable and, perhaps, much more interesting.

Another fun aspect of the Alex character and his arc is his continued rivalry with a Japanese captain, Nagata. The interaction between these two men are truly some of the film's highlights; they work off each other very well, both snarky and stubborn and pushed to their limits - if the flick was just Alex and Nagata firing off insults at each other and trying to run a ship, that'd possibly be one of the most entertaining movies of the summer. 

As far as the other characters, they are hardly worth mentioning. We have Rhianna of all people playing a strong but scared shipmate, and Brroklyn Decker as Alex’s girlfriend Samantha, who is forced into the narrative in a rather embarrassingly convoluted manner. Sam spends her time with a Army veteran Mick (Gadson), who involve themselves in the race to stop the aliens before they can screw the earth over even harder. Their scenes together – sigh – not the best, but they do rub in the tone of Battleship: the movie knows precisely what it is and what it’s aiming for, and doesn’t cater to anything else but that. Battleship is fun, and furthermore, Battleship is a movie. It doesn’t take itself seriously, and it doesn’t want the audience to, either. Take this humorous exchange: “We can still buy the earth one more day”, says Mick, ready to drive into a kamakazie mission to, well, give the earth one more day, while Mr. Stuttering Scientist Dude rightly comments, “Who talks like that?” The Transformers movies take themselves seriously while having a good time – Battleship is the less straight-faced version of that franchise.

Sunk Your Battleship, Motherfrakker!

For this type of movie, what matters most to the general audience is one thing: being blown away by the action scenes. And holy frak, director Peter Berg delivers. When the aliens first pop their mechanical hides out of the water and engage the ships, that is some real devastation they bring (the aliens, not the Navy), and the loss of life is (surprisingly) felt and very real and emotional. At night, a game of cat-and-mouse is tense in that edge-of-your-seat kind of way, and a sunrise kill-or-be-killed is gorgeous to watch. This action delivers, and if the presence of Liam Neeson ain’t enough to persuade you to seek out Battleship (although, really, he ought to, that man is amazing), hopefully your interest in pretty damn thrilling action scenes will be enticing enough.

If there’s one overbearing negative that prevents a person from really falling in love with the insane action beats and briskful narrative, it’s the presentation of the aliens. One word: lame. Eh, second word: disappointing. In regards to J. J. Abrams, a lot of his creatures are designed a bit too similar to make each one unique enough, and thus hinders that jaw-dropping ‘woah’ moment. Here, the alien designs are just lazy. When the masks do come off and the aliens can be seen in their full glory, I get what they’re trying to go with – the physical similarities between us and them, and the differences – but their armor makes me feel like this is a ‘Don’t Sue Us!’ iteration of Halo and the aliens’ actual appearance gives me Bad Aquaman Villain vibes. So the aliens and Rhianna – those I could do a mecha-change-up to a otherwise fun film.

Bite the Bullet

Yes, worth seeing. A greater understanding of the human race will not be revealed to you during the running time of Battleship, but you get to see some beautiful alien and naval destruction as the earth is on the brink of annihilation. And Liam Neeson. And there’s actual character work in the movie, making it a tiny step above the typical summer blockbuster. Point is, if you’re willing to suspend every ounce of disbelief and just sit back and dig the tone Battleship is going for, this will be two hours very well spent. 8.0/10

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Conan the Barbarian

Starring Jason Moma, Stephen Lang, Rachel Nichols, Rose McGowan, Ron Pearlman, Leo Howard, Bob Sapp
Written by Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, Sean Hood
Directed by Marcus Nispel
Release: 19 August 2011
Lionsgate, 112 mins., Rated R

Plot: Conan kills his way to the sinister king Zym who killed his father and massacred his village.

Remakes, remakes, remakes. But y’know what? I don’t mind a remake of Conan the Barbarian. The original 1982 film with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan is less than perfect, and the property is interesting enough that modern audiences just might find themselves enjoying the ride, so all in all, I’m happy to see the Barbarian on the big screen again. So how did it fair?

Like the original, Conan the Barbarian 2011 is a revenge story. As a boy, he watched his father burn to death right in front of him, and he vows vengeance to kill the man and everyone connected to his father’s murder. 20 years later, said man who did the killing is now a King and is on his way to achieve Godhood: he just needs to kill some “pureblood” girl to complete the spell and he’ll be all powerful and stuff. Really, the plot is just loosely there. This film is about Conan killing his way to the bad guy, leaving a trail of bodies behind, and the audience having a fun time watching. So, it definitely succeeds in that regard.

Taking over for Schwarzenegger is the muscular Jason Moma, who brings a sense of fun to the role and is entirely believable as a kickass action hero. Then again, it’s not like he’s entirely foreign to the role, after slicing some heads in HBO’s Game of Thrones and saving universes in Stargate: Atlantis. Watching Moma exact vengeance, woo the gorgeous female heroine, and take his bloody revenge is the best aspect of the film and entirely worth the price of admission alone. Basically, Moma owns. As the love interest (which is weird for being a monk), Rachel Nichols is the object of the Bad Guy’s desire – humorously named Zym [note to bad guys: don’t name yourself Zym; I kept wishing the ‘ittle green alien from that Nick show would appear and zap Zym to pieces] – and although she is important to the plot, she unfortunately isn’t given much more than to look pretty and be in distress (although she is given a moment or two to fight, which is appreciated).

The bad guy is hilariously performed by Stephen Lang (Avatar), who indulges in overacting like nobody’s business. He and Ron Pearlman, who plays Conan’s late father, must have arrived on set either for the paycheck or the bloody fun of it. Lang’s bad guy Zym is aided by his daughter Marique, played by Rose McGowan (Charmed), a sorcerer whose makeup is absolutely frightening to look at. Note to ladies: if you don’t want to get hit on during Halloween, congrats, you found your costume.

Conan 2011 is competently directed by Marcus Nispel, who is no stranger to remakes (Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre). His take is less atmospheric than the original (which was longer paced, created dread for Conan’s victims), but it is grittier and bloodier. Grit aside, it does seem a bit more fun. And that’s the thing about Conan 2011 that I love and don’t love: it is fun and enjoyable, but it could have been so much more. So it all comes down to this: if you’re looking for a sweeping epic with a brooding barbarian lusting for revenge, it doesn’t exactly deliver. If you want a fun, action-packed flick that is highly entertaining and doesn’t require a lot of thought, than Conan delivers. Unfortunately the box office return as rather dismal, and the outlook for a sequel is rather bleak, so go out and enjoy Conan while you can.

Rating: 7.5/10 = Not bad entertainment at all, but there is definite room for improvement. That said, CONAN is fun, and the sword fights are pretty cool. Plus, Jason Moma rocks as Conan. If these reasons are enough, than CONAN's your movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Starring Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, Sebastian Stan
Script by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFreely
Directed by Joe Johnston
Release: 22 July 2011
Marvel Studios, 124 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: Scrawny, shorty Steve Rogers is selected to be the first Super Soldier to win WWII, but ends up facing an enemy far more powerful than they realized.

Captain America is The Man. He’s the character who represents what it means to be a hero. He epitomizes patriotism – the little man who wants nothing more than to fight for his country, to fight for freedoms and liberties, to stand up against bullies, and to show the red, white, and blue in a funny outfit that just might outfunny Superman’s. Captain America is Steve Rogers, a dude who physically is no way capable of being in a battlefield, let alone leading men. He is courageous, generous, polite, stubborn, and full of vigor to fight the good fight when necessary. Unfortunately, Captain America is also a bit of a one-note character that doesn’t lend himself to be all that interesting. Amazingly, director Joe Johnston and the (probably) many writers onboard crafted a film that – although not great by any means – is more entertaining than it has any right to be.

Right off the bat, I gotta say, Chris Evans did a wonderful job. He embodies Steve Rogers so freakin’ well, it’s a bit weird. Unlike Ryan Reynolds who is able to bring his trademark wisecracks but not fully capable of embodying Hal Jordan, Evans is perfectly able to indulge in his brilliant comic timing (when applicable; the funny is far and few in between) all the while completely being Steve Rogers. A while ago an little something like that would have gone unnoticed by me; guess that goes to show that GREEN LANTERN did make a impression – just not the right one. Anywhoozles, I suggest the casting directors on these Marvel films need raises – there has been some spot on casting 1999: the X-MEN movies, Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth and his six pack, Sam Jackson, and now Chris Evans. There’s a lot of brilliance going on behind the Marvel film department. Another standout performance, thanks to a standout, powerful female character is the gorgeous Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Rogers’ love interest and basically boss. Here the infatuation between both parties feels organic instead of the contrived “I wanna hump you!” vibe you get from Natalie Portman’s lustful glances at Thor. Ms. Atwell, and Ms. Carter by extension, are great additions to the movie, and are just as strong and memorable as a Super Serum mascot.Just as great but used less is Tommy Lee Jones who can do this military role sleepwalking, but surprisingly seems to be having a bit of fun with it. At the very least, it’s Jones that delivers the best lines of the film.

The action scenes are wonderfully done. Around the hour mark Steve goes behind enemy lines to liberate some military hostages, and it’s a thrilling sequence as the facility starts to explode around him. We’re also treated to a montage of Captain America fights as he gains popularity among the U.S. military and strikes fear for the German and Hydra division. Sure, I wouldn’t have minded a bit more exploration in Steve’s missions, but I’m satisfied enough with what we were given. The final fight between Steve and Red Skull is also impressive(ish), sorta coming off INCEPTION like as the two punch each other around a descending ship. Ultimately there just isn’t enough action beats in the movie.

Which is a weird thing to say cos I really liked the first 30 minutes of build up to Steve becoming all Super Serumed. I enjoyed seeing the digital small Chris Evans (which really wasn’t all that distracting) get his face punched in and not back away from a fight, or mumble when talking to a gorgeous military woman, or be all ‘I don’t like bullies’ to Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci). All that stuff was good; the perfect amount of time spent on setting up Rogers and Howard Stark and Erskine’s Super Soldier genetics. And then I absolutely loved when Captain America became basically a war publicity whore – thrown out there to big crowds to encourage civilians to support the war monetarily, or have some movies based off his character as he kicks some Nazi ass. Having the Captain do this with his abilities first, before becoming the hero we all know about, was genius, and one of the best parts of the movie.

The best part of the movie is right after Steve gets imbued with his new powers, and the movie – highly immersed in the sort of grandiose 1940s/1950s action movies – cultivates the clichéd and contrived dramatic beat of the bad guy throwing a kid off a building or something, but this time the bad guy throws the kid into the water. It’s used time and time ago, cos of course Batman or whoever is gonna let the bad guy go so he can catch the kid. But CAPTAIN AMERICA has a clever script. Rogers looks to the water and the kids says, “Go get him! I can swim!” Motherfrakking brilliant, and the biggest laugh of the movie.

Just to make a quick note: concerning rewatch value, I saw CAPTAIN AMERICA twice in one week. With the exception of the great hostage rescue action piece, and the montage of the Captain in battle, the film actually was a bit boring. Not even Hugo Weaving’s amusing German accent was enough to fully sustain my interest. It’s unfortunate, especially considering the enormous rewatchability of THOR’s messed up family dynamic, or IRON MAN’s drunken hero.
In the end, CAPTAIN AMERICA is worth seeing. Of course it is, if you’re following the Marvel superhero films. As has been noted on nearly every site, this is the last flick before Joss Whedon delivers THE AVENGERS to the world next May, so attendance feels basically mandatory. As a standalone movie, THE FIRST AVENGER surprisingly works quite well. The nods to the past (THOR) and future (AVENGERS) is nicely balanced without one element overshadowing another, and the film definitely has its own legs. Ultimately it’s not my favorite production from Marvel Studios, but that is truthfully no fault to the writers, directors, actors, etc. It’s just that Captain America, the character, just ain’t interesting enough. Or at the very least, extend the runtime to allow us more Steve Rogers in the suit. All that said, hopefully Joss can infuse some dimension into the character. After all, Rogers is thrown into an entirely new environment as the film closes, so Joss has more to work with than the writers here. But all in all, complaints aside, I enjoyed my time.

One last comment: why the hell do the world-ending missiles HAVE to be labeled? “New York”. “Berlin”. Mega Facepalm.

Rating: 7/10 = As a pre-AVENGERS flick, it’s a must see, and although everyone involved in this production quite obviously love the material and put their best work into it, the titular hero just doesn’t grab the viewer enough.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon [3D]

Starring Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Patrick Dempsey, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Leonard Nimoy
Written by Ehren Kruger
Directed by Michael Bay
Release: 29 June 2011
Paramount, 155 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: An Autobot spacecraft landed in the moon years ago, now its contents will bring about worlds end.

July 2007, Michael Bay “wowed” and amazed me with TRANSFORMERS, the first film of the franchise based off a successful Hasboro action figure line and animated television series. That movie was so beautifully crafted, after each viewing, I wouldn’t be opposed to another. The entire movie flew past me as a young and impressive Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox ran from giant digital robots that by no means looked or felt digital; for all I knew (if I didn’t know better), Michael Bay and producer Steven Spielberg were given tips from the government about an authentic alien species that scans earthbound technology (in this case, cars) and adapts. Haters can hate all they want, but absolutely nothing will break my unabashed and boundless affection for that first movie. It was, in a world, (bloody) fantastic.

Obviously, high expectations for the sequel, TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN. A great first film, and the trailers for part two promised a darker picture with a interesting scenario, loads of action, and a revenge plot (and occasional readers of this blog will recognize my love for revenge plots), I went into the midnight showing hoping to be wowed. In some cases I was, but my enjoyment was skewered by the presence of two utterly obnoxious Autobots that despite my best wishes never fell in battle, an unfortunate and unnecessary shot of John Turuto’s ass that I will never fully eviscerate from my memory, and perhaps a too convoluted script for its own good. There are still parts of ROTF that I love and watch frequently (especially the scenes with Sam’s parents, which are always priceless), but the movie itself, frankly didn’t meet the possibly momentous expectations from the first one. Although there is a definite feeling of letdown, I try not to be too hard on it; the film is, after all, a casualty of a Writer’s Strike, leaving the producers and director a detailed outline more than a script. So with a lackluster sequel, and growing public distaste of Michael Bay reaching unprecedented proportions, TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON is hitting theaters with a rather weird position.

One, Michael Bay and company had to redeem themselves for a lackluster and misguided sequel, providing a movie that maintained the same fun and humorous vibe of the first one and insane action sequences from both while creating a good enough, uncomplicated story. Second, audiences are (or rather now, were) rather skeptical about venturing into a third after the dismal second, and with the eye-candy of Ms. Fox gone, would the power of robots battling each other still be appealing to a wide demographic? Third, this is more than likely the last film for its big name stars – Shia, Josh, Bay – so DOTM had to deliver a satisfying enough conclusion to their character arcs and say adieu to the visual aesthetic Michael has cemented in the cinematic TRANSFORMERS world.It delights me to grin-fully say that TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON is a worthy sequel. There’s intense, insane, awesome action scenes that only Mr. Bay could realize so beautifully; there’s the perfect balance of comedy, drama, action, and story; and above all, DOTM was enormously fun. ROTF had plenty of fun, but its problems were quite apparent and ultimately sucked one out of the viewing experience; DOTM has no such problems [although I was petrified by John Malkovich’s orange-looking face, like something out of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3]. The movie fulfills the Autobots vs. Decepticons expectations by giving us an epic, Apocalyptic storyline where it truly is a lethal, kill-or-be-killed environment. It gives our characters plots that make them absolutely integral to the story, and ultimately integral to the success or failure of saving the planet. Even Sam’s sexy galfriend Carly eventually becomes more than eye candy, making a choice that has some predictable and surprising consequences. Point is, if this is Bay and Shia’s last film, and maybe even the final TRANSFORMERS production (unlikely that may be), they couldn’t have closed the series better.

Well, sure, they could. Maybe something more conclusive than this, but, um, what should be taken away from this is that they did good.

Now, by this point I’ve seen DARK OF THE MOON twice, and its 155 minute running time had diverse effects both times. The very first midnight screening last week, every second was spectacular and the film flowed very well. I wasn’t antsy, I wasn’t disinterested, and I felt no compulsion to find out what’s going on in the world of Facebook. In a word, I had a blast. Weirdly, my second time wasn’t as fun. Perhaps it was the circumstances: a sore throat, sucky back, there/not there headache, but DOTM sure as hell felt as long as it was. Sure, the jokes were still funny, and the visuals are possibly the best in the business – no denying that – but the film seemed to drag. Thing is, though, reviewing the scenes and events of the film, what on earth could Bay have cut? Yes, there were lots of comic scenes that, in theory, could be cut without losing necessities of plot, but it wouldn’t be a TRANSFORMERS movie without those comedic scenes/elements; it’s half the charm of the trilogy. So part of me wants to complain about the movies length, but in retrospect, I honestly don’t know what to cut. They could condense the plot down to the bare minimum, but it also wouldn’t be a TRANSFORMERS flick without all those obstacles Sam and the girlfriend face.

Anyway, running time aside, DARK OF THE MOON works. It nearly redeems the mistakes of REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, and it’s an absolute joyful time at the theater.Perhaps excited for his last adventure as Sam Witwicky, Shia LaBeouf is very much having a blast. He gets to make out with a Victoria Secret lingerie model, which I’m sure involves some hard acting, run fast through obliterated Chicago streets, get the crap beat out of him and dish it out as much as its thrown at him, and enjoy another verbal jest with his parents (or is it all ad-lib?). Whether he actually cares about the franchise or not, Shia has always delivered strong performances, I feel, and this is no exception. Furthermore, he is given a nice arc this time around, wanting to matter in the world again, not just be a regular Joe. After all, heReplacing Megan Fox after a heated quarrel shortly before or after the release of FALLEN where the actress was let go, Rose Huntington-Whiteley isn’t bad at all. Its obvious acting isn’t her strong suit – and indeed her beautiful British accent is heart-melting enough to nearly overshadow her flaws – but she fulfills the requirements of the role, and she does it well. Moreover, her character is stronger than Mikayela, more mature, confidant, and (occasionally) has some balls. As for the Megan Vs. Rose duel that’s been around since Whiteley’s casting, well, I guess I would favor Fox. Just got a thing for brunettes.
Patrick Dempsey stunned me with a far more complex character than I expected (though my expectations were targeting something near a MADE OF HONOR 2-quality), easily becoming one of the films acting highlights. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson are obviously having a blast spouting off funny one-liners and shooting really big guns, and I love ‘em for it. The franchise, if it continues, won’t be the same without them…

<…nor would it be the same without Michael Bay, for that matter. His visual style, color timing, tone, and personality are all over these three films. Just imagine how utterly different the next flick would be under someone new, even if it’s Spielberg himself. Love the guy or hate him, the TRANSFORMERS trilogy is Bay’s directorial crowning achievement, I’d say (and this is without having seen THE ROCK), and it will/would be a odd experience watching TRANSFORMERS 4 without the Man Who Made it Possible. Just respect what the guy accomplished, is all.>

As for the special effects…well, what is there to say? Damn well perfect. The best of the business. Flawless. Detailed. Gorgeous. The special effects are to a point where those digital creations are no longer simply human generated Autobots or Decepticons, and the city destruction isn't manufactured from the mouse clicks of a pressed-down finger, but those Autobots and Decepticons and city destruction scenes are real and authentic feeling. It's amazing, really. The 3-D wasn’t bad, either.

[For those wondering how I’d rate the 3D flicks I’ve seen, here they be:

1. My Bloody Valentine
2. Avatar
3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
5. The Final Destination

Bet you didn’t expect seeing a horror flick there, first (and last), eh?]
DARK OF THE MOON also features one of my favorite set pieces/scenes in any movie ever: the crumbling building scene. It’s not a spoiler, cos it’s featured in the trailer. I love, love, love, love, LOVE it when our heroes are trapped in a building that is about to go down, and Michael Bay did not disappoint at all in delivering an intense action piece. Lives are lost, crazy shit must be done to survive, and a collapsing building has never been more visually beautiful onscreen. It’s just so fun to watch the heroes figure out what to do next, and when they are sliding on the outside glass: holy freaking crap intensity, man! Basically, one of the best scenes of the series.

Maybe this being the last of the Bay TRANSFORMERS films he thought it best to go out with a bang, actor-wise, but there are so many people that make appearances that it became a fun game and surprise every time. Of course there’s Leonard Nimoy voicing Sentinel Prime, and at one point near the climax, a long-loved STAR TREK line is even freakin’ used. At the midnight theater I think only one other person laughed; it was depressing. Scott Krinsky, “Jeff” from the TV series CHUCK, shows up for one very memorable shot; mega extra Jesse Heiman (who you can also see near Jesse Eisenberg in THE SOCIAL NETWORK) walks behind Shia, looks at the camera, pauses for two seconds, and continues walking (!). It was the ultimate extra moment, man [if you want to know more, check out this brilliant video); Ken Jeong continues to seize his current famousness by showing up for a scene; and the awesome Alan Tudyk is given the opportunity to show off his unbelievable hilarious talent as John Turturro's bodyguard. Seeing who was in the movie was almost as fun as the film itself!

All in all, DARK OF THE MOON was a fun experience. Epic in scope, a lot happens in those 155 minutes which you’ll either be completely engaged in or a tad bit bored. This is the end of the world, giant robots style, and Sam Witwicky is the only one who has the balls to stop it. Next to Lennox, of course. The TRANSFORMERS films don’t desire the spite they’re given, and Bay deserves kudos for how far he pushes the envelope with action pieces and really freaking awesome cinematography. If this is the last of Bay and Shia, adios, sirs, you did great. Thanks for giving us three memorable action-packed movies that made me go “wow” again. Good luck on your next projects

For those few still deciding whether or not to see DARK OF THE MOON still, I say take the plunge. It’ll be worth it.

Rating: 9/10 = Redeems REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, and is a kickass, adrenaline-filled experience that will not disappoint.