Short Version: There are already so many great adaptions of the classic Dickens story – this one adds nothing but CGI and gimmicky 3D effects.

Screen Rant reviews A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol is one of my all time favorite Christmas stories. Maybe because most of the year I feel like a somewhat cranky Ebenezer Scrooge but once Thanksgiving is over my mood lightens over the spirit of the upcoming holiday. It seems that every few years someone feels the need to do an update on the classic tale, and sometimes it works. Heck there have certainly been a lot of versions over the years (over two dozen on TV and in movies according to IMDB), and I’ve enjoyed many of those myself.

This time director Robert Zemeckis (who seems intent upon never making another live action film as long as he lives) brings us another 3D, IMAX, CGI motion-capture extravaganza. If the number of buzzwords there don’t tell you what this film is really about, then I can’t help you.

The movie stars Jim Carrey in a variety of roles, most notably old Scrooge himself. The Scrooge character, with it’s caricature-like features is actually the most effective one in the film (thankfully, since he’s the lead). Carrey also plays the three ghosts that come to haunt Ebenezer as well as Scrooge at younger ages. We also have Gary Oldman playing primarily Bob Cratchit and Bob Hoskins (briefly) playing Scrooge’s old boss Mr. Fezziwig. I mention these two in particular because someone made the decision to make the characters look very similar to the actors portraying them. I don’t know what effect they were going for, but I can tell you what the result was: Creepy.

It was just bizarre watching a CGI character that looked so much like Oldman, but not – with the only semi-human animatronic look that defines the “uncanny valley” (the very subtle things that aren’t right in attempted photo-real computer animated portrayal of humans). Most of the characters suffered from the same thing – it was like watching an animatronic display at Disneyland.

On the other hand there were glimpses of amazingly realistic people in the film – but these were always at a distance. There was one scene where I wanted to believe that they inserted a live actress into the film just as an “Easter Egg.” I respect Zemeckis for what he’s doing, I really do – he’s trying to push the frontier when it comes to people rendered as CGI. Problem is you have to get it PERFECT, otherwise your brain just kind of short-circuits looking at this “almost-real” person on the screen. This is why most CGI animated films use caricatures of humans – it’s easier for the mind to accept. By making blue-skinned, overly tall aliens with odd facial features I think James Cameron will get around this in Avatar.

And speaking of the upcoming 3D Cameron-helmed extravaganza, A Christmas Carol is in 3D. I’ve said many times before that I’m a fan of of 3D cinema, but not when it’s used as a gimmick. Overall I really enjoyed the 3D look of the film but there was one sequence that was stuck into the film that just didn’t belong and was there only for the sake of showing off the roller coaster effects and exaggerated 3D in the film. It was at least a five minute sequence and I was mentally tapping my fingers waiting for it to be over so we could get back to the story. Side note: There seemed to be a little tribute to the “tiny Ash” scene from Army of Darkness.

So what did I like? The story, of course, but they don’t get credit for that. I did enjoy the opening scene, which was very effective in showing just HOW miserly and feared Scrooge was. On the flip side, I also really enjoyed the “post-mean” ending of the film – it really gave us more time with the repentant Ebenezer than I’ve seen in any version to date.

Besides what I’ve mentioned, what I didn’t like was that the film was all over the spectrum in terms of tone – sometimes it was goofy-funny, and at other times had scenes that I think will scare the heck out of little kids. When his doorknob comes to life, that’s a heck of a scare and Marley’s jaw coming loose was worthy of a horror movie IMHO. Of course then they put a little “ha ha” moment on the end of that one, but by then your kids has had the poop scared out of them. Oh, and I have to mention the ghost of Christmas past – one of the most unexplainedly ridiculous characters I’ve ever seen on screen. Then again, maybe it’s me, some people were laughing at it, but frankly I was perplexed by the point of what is was doing and thought it was just plain stupid.

No doubt there will be comments below wittily calling me a Scrooge, but you’re too late, I did that in the opening paragraph. But seriously, as I said, I love this story – and I wish that Zemeckis had left the CGI behind and made it a live action film based on the classic tale.

• A CGI Jim Carrey in ‘A Christmas Carol’
• Six Clips from Disney’s A Christmas Carol
• New Trailer, TV Spot & Still for A Christmas Carol
• Comic-Con: Disney 3D Showcases A Christmas Carol
• Disney 3D Trailers: A Christmas Carol and Toy Story 1&2
• New International Posters For ‘A Christmas Carol’

Short Version: IF you let it draw you in with its factual approach, The Fourth Kind will creep you out more than Paranormal Activity.

Screen Rant reviews The Fourth Kind

After the extreme split in opinions on Paranormal Activity (I liked it), I was curious to see The Fourth Kind to see which side of the fence I fell on. I can understand how you can either love or hate the former, and I have a feeling something similar will happen with this film: Either you buy into the whole premise and let it suck you in, or you stand back and call B.S. on the whole thing.

The Fourth Kind opens unexpectedly, with Milla Jovovich as herself talking plainly to the audience. She speaks matter of factly and seriously, telling us the details upon which the film we are about to see are based. In addition to actors portraying real people (most of whom will have their names changed in the film) there will be scenes of actual video shot during the events portrayed in the movie. It will be disturbing, she tells us.

What will be so disturbing? The account of Alaskan psychologist Dr. Abigail Tyler (played by Milla), taken from her notes, videotapes (and a personal interview by director Olatunde Osunsanmi) which tells the story of the strange nocturnal experiences of a number of residents of Nome Alaska in the Summer/Fall of 2000. A number of townsfolk have all been experiencing the same unique visions and sleeplessness at night – similar in details that could not be coincidental, and they’ve individually turned to her for help in determining what these things mean.

They all share visions of being watched by a strange white owl in the middle of the night. This sounds goofy, but when they intercut footage of the actual people in her office relating their story – each on their own and each story with the same details – the creepiness factor starts to escalate. And it only gets worse as Dr. Tyler delves deeper into their psyches to unearth buried details via hypnosis.

What starts her down the path of “something really weird is going on” is the fact that going back to the 1960s there have been (for a town of its size) an awful lot of unexplained missing people in Nome. The FBI has gone out multiple times to try and find answers and has always come up blank. One of her sessions leads to a very tragic event, putting her at odds with the town sheriff who believes she is stirring people up and causing harm. Eventually things come to a head, get really crazy and out of hand, and bring us to the present day interview that is threaded throughout the film.

The creep factor comes in from assuming that what you’re watching is, in fact, true and that the homemade videos are all in fact legitimate. However I will say that the farther you get into the film the more you have to suspend your disbelief – especially with some of what appears in the supposedly real camcorder footage. I won’t give anything away, but you’ll understand if you see the movie.

If you don’t buy into that concept at least a little bit, then The Fourth Kind will leave you as cold as Paranormal Activity did for people who didn’t go along for the ride with that film. However if you let it get in your head, I think you’ll find that The Fourth Kind is even more effective at freaking you out and causing you some nervousness after you turn off the last light at night and head off to bed.

• The Fourth Kind Looks to Scare You with 2 New TV Spots
• Will ‘The Fourth Kind’ Be The Next Paranormal Activity? [Updated]
• Paranormal Activity Director Headed for ‘Area 51′
• Add Your Name to the ‘Paranormal Activity’ DVD Credits
• Poster Friday: Toy Story 3, Saw VI, A Christmas Carol & Many More!
• Paranormal Activity Theatrical Trailer

Short Version: Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant is an entertaining “alternative” vampire movie that should appeal to teens – but it’s NOT for younger kids.

Screen Rant reviews Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant

I haven’t read the books this movie is based on (from what I understand, the first three books of a 12 book series – a lot to cram into one film) and I didn’t have any preconceived notions about it good or bad going in. Based on trailers and commercials I really didn’t know what to expect, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised… in most part due to John C. Reilly’s performance as Larten Crepsley, mentor to our burgeoning hero Darren Shan (played by Chris Massoglia).

Darren Shan is your basic “good kid” teenager. He gets good grades, stays out of trouble and listens to his overly “square” parents. He’s best friends with Steve (Josh Hutcherson), the “wild kid” who’s had a rough upbringing and has stood up for Darren over the years. They find out a freakshow (Cirque du Freak) is coming to their little hole in the wall town, and Steve talks Darren into sneaking out to see it. At the freakshow we meet Mr. Tall (played wonderfully by Ken Watanabe) – the man who runs the show and plays head of the family for the assorted misfits we are about to meet.

Some slight spoilers follow as an FYI to parents.

The stage show is VERY creepy for a film that parents may think about bringing younger kids to… It includes a man with a super-narrow midsection with his internal organs exposed, a man with two huge, grotesque stomachs and a scene where a werewolf rips off a woman’s arm. Throughout the film there are fight scenes that are very dark, aggressive and creepy, and some of the characters may be disturbing to kids under 10 in my opinion – under 8 or so I’d say forget it.

End spoilers.

Steve feels he has nothing to lose and wants to become a vampire, while of course Darren has no interest – guess what happens. Eventually Darren is “blooded” by Mr. Crepsley, who does this to protect Darren from the also quite creepy Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris, who gives another effective, if over the top, performance). It seems Mr. Tiny’s mission in life is nothing short of bringing on the apocalypse and he’s looking for a young man to fulfill some prophecy.

There’s a split in the vampire community – there are “good” vampires like Mr. Crepsley, who figured out (finally, if you ask me) that it’s better to just draw some blood from a victim and leave them alive with no memory of what happened than to kill them, thus avoiding the whole “driven out of town by people with pitchforks” scenario. On the other hand there are the “old school” vampires called the “Vampanese” who kill their victims and drain them dry (Mr. Tiny, while not a vampire, is on their side).

Mr. Crepsley decides to hide Darren among the freaks in their circus camp. We meet a variety of characters including the rather engaging snake-man Evra Von (Patrick Fugit) and the rather normal looking young lady Rebecca (Jessica Carlson). Eventually Darren comes to see them as people and not as whatever oddity they display.

The film is an odd combination of humor and serious/kid-scary scenes. John C. Reilly is really a joy to watch in every scene, conveying the ascerbic humor of his character perfectly. I also enjoyed the heck out of Ken Watanabe here – so wonderfully… strange. And I couldn’t take my eyes off the creepy, mesmerizing Michael Cervis as Mr. Tiny. Salma Hayek co-stars with her abundant cleavage (see the movie and you’ll get what I mean – not that I’m complaining) and Willem Defoe makes a brief appearance that is memorable despite his lack of screen time. The young leads were adequate, but nothing very memorable – Massoglia was no doubt chosen for his teen eye candy appeal.

While The Vampire’s Assistant is a hard movie to nail down as far as tone, I really did find myself enjoying it for what it was throughout its entirety. I think teens and even adults might enjoy it, but leave the little ones at home for this one – trust me on that.

• ‘Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant’ Trailer & Poster
• Fantastic Fest Day Three: Japanese Sci-Fi Punk Rock, Russian Doctors on Drugs, and Vampirical Assistants
• This Week’s Collection of Movie Posters
• Poster Friday: Moon, Tooth Fairy, Parnassus & More!
• Poster Friday: New Moon, Caprica, The Crazies & More!
• Blood: The Last Vampire Review

Short version: Ong Bak 2: The Beginning isn’t for everyone, but for action junkies, it provides exactly what you’d expect.

Screen Rant’s Ross Miller reviews Ong Bak 2

The first Ong Bak (subtitled Muay Thai Warrior) I found to be quite entertaining, with some seriously kick-ass fight sequences, consisting of some often jaw-dropping choreography and stunts. Unfortunately, there were also some not-so-great aspects, notably the poor acting and thin storyline. But overall there was enough there to make it worthwhile, and it was pretty much inevitable that another movie would follow.

It’s no surprise to find that Ong Bak 2, or Ong Bak 2: The Beginning, is practically more of the same, but it manages to get rid of (or at least better mask) the bad elements, while subsequently improving on the fight sequences (if you can believe it).

Ong Bak 2 is actually a prequel to Ong Bak, taking place in ancient Thailand as opposed to modern-day Thailand. However, what wasn’t entirely clear was how the sequel links to the first one, since it takes place centuries prior (unless Tony Jaa’s character is immortal, I can’t see how it’s the same guy in both – their names are different, for one thing). Confusion aside, the new (or old) setting is a nice change-up from what we saw in the first movie, perhaps even enhancing the awe-inspiring fighting in a strange way.

The plot follows Tien (Jaa), the son of a Lord murdered in Thailand in the late 15th century. After resisting ruthless slave traders and just moments from death, Tien is rescued by a renowned warrior who takes him under his wing and trains him in martial arts, including the heavy use of weapons. He eventually grows up and into “one of the most dangerous men alive.” Tien goes on to track down and exact vengeance on the men who enslaved him as a child, as well as getting revenge on the warlord who killed his father.

I think Ong Bak 2 is the type of movie you have to judge on the grounds of what it’s attempting to do, and if it achieved that goal or not. And I can say that it certainly does achieve its goals. The movie zips along at a fairly quick pace, linking one amazing fight scene to another, with only a few sags in the narrative here and there but nothing too detrimental to the film as a whole.

The fight scenes are often unbelievably well executed and will be impressive (I imagine) to even the most avid action movie goer. Thank the talents of star and director, Tony Jaa; he punched and kicked his way onto the cinematic radar with the first Ong Bak, defying gravity, kicking the asses of more bad guys than can possibly be counted, while bringing a fresh style to the martial arts genre. The fact that he had directorial control this time around definitely shows on-screen: the action scenes seem to flow a lot better than they did in the first film, not exactly entering into the realm of the believable (the more ridiculous, the better, I say!), but somehow feeling as such within the context of the film itself.

For instance, there’s a scene where Tien uses an elephant – which he’s managed to “tame” – when battling just one of the many bands of bad guys he runs into. He uses the elephant to spring off and swing on in order to pull off a special type of fly-kick, and even uses the elephant’s tusks to knock out his foes. Sounds a bit out there, right? Well in principle it is, but Jaa makes it work. Go figure.

As I said, even though you have to judge this type of film for what it’s trying to do, that still doesn’t stop some poorly handled aspects from somewhat weighing it down. The story feels fairly generic, or at least predictable – young boy’s father is killed, he gets taken in by a warrior, trains to be an amazing fighter, and goes out to avenge said father. The dialogue – the little there is of it – is very by-the-book (sometimes ultra-cheesy) and the acting (as far as I could tell since I don’t speak Thai) was sub-par at best.

But I imagine if you’re thinking about checking out Ong Bak 2, acting, script or story will be the furthest thing from your mind. Chances are you’re looking for more of the kick-ass fight sequences we saw in the first Ong Bak (as well as the similar The Protector) and I’m happy to say the film delivers on that in absolute spades.

• District 9 (Apparently) More Action-Packed Than We Thought
• Blood: The Last Vampire Review
• G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Review
• ‘Ninja Assassin’s’ Rain To ‘Awaken The Dragon?’
• Tim Robbins Is NOT In Iron Man 2 After All
• The Taking of Pelham 123 Review

Short version: Despite its flaws, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus still offers some jaw-dropping visuals, fine performances and showcases a fantastically creative imagination that make it worth seeing.

Screen Rant’s Ross Miller Reviews The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

There are a handful of directors out there – including Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch and The Coen brothers – whose new films are always considered to be cinematic events. Amongst that list of directors (for me) is Terry Gilliam, who I think is one of the most imaginative and creative filmmakers out there when it comes to the ideas and subsequent visuals that come the wild imagination he possesses.

Even when he’s at his weakest, Gilliam always offers something worth watching in my books, whether it be ambitious sci-fi (Twelve Monkeys) or almost self-indulgent fantasy (Tideland). So does his latest fantasy-laden film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus deliver yet again on that Gilliam charm? Thankfully yes, even if the film is not exactly perfect.

Doctor Parnassus centers on the titular character (Christopher Plummer), a 1,000 year-old former monk who centuries ago made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits) to obtain immortality in return for any children he might father in his life, once said child turned 16. Dr. Parnassus makes a living from his traveling Imaginarium theater, which allows its audience to enter a magical and mysterious world which takes the form of the person’s imagination, fueled by the power that Dr. Parnassus has.

One day Dr. Parnassus, along with his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), and his travelling theater workers Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer), come across the mysterious and amnesiac named Tony (Heath Ledger). With time running out on his satanic contract, Dr. Parnassus and his troupe venture out to save Parnassus’s daughter before the devil comes to collect.

Doctor Parnassus suffers from what many of these types of real world/fantasy world films suffer from: The gorgeous, often awe-inspiring visuals to be found in the fantasy world make the real world pale in comparison. It’s the scenes in the real world – which unfortunately make up the majority of the movie – that tend to sag in places, due to a thin story and how unevenly that story is handled. Perhaps the less-than-exciting scenes of the real world are watered down on purpose to make the fantasy aspects stand out even more – but as much as that’s admirable in hindsight, it doesn’t make watching the film any more entertaining. In my opinion, Gilliam proves that his imagination sometimes outreaches his ability to frame it within a package that works in its entirety.

It’s a huge relief, then, that things pick up when it comes to the fantasy elements of this film – whether its the stories being told by Dr. Parnassus that are shown in flashback, or the actual fantasy world in all its visually stunning glory. From reflective lands filled with giant candy canes and golden lily pads (which kind of looks like a warped, no-boundaries Willy Wonka factory), to bright, cheerful, rolling hills with endless ladders pointed towards the sky – this film really is a visual treat that needs to be seen to be truly appreciated.

Whether right or wrong, much of the interest in seeing Doctor Parnassus will be to see the late Heath Ledger in his last film role before he sadly passed away. And if I’m being completely honest, it took me a while from when he was introduced in the film (which isn’t straight away, FYI) to get used to it. And I would be lying if I said that Ledger’s last performance was fantastic, or even his personal best, because it’s not (as populist as it may be to say, his performance as The Joker was his peak). However, don’t get me wrong: Ledger turns in a good, even great, performance, once again showing off his diversity as an actor and his true talent when placed in the right roles (he’s been in some not-so-great films, too, let’s not kid ourselves).

After Ledger died mid-way through Doctor Parnassus’s production, it was questioned whether or not Gilliam was going to even continue on and finish shooting the film. As a fix, Gilliam brought on-board three of Ledger’s friends, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. As great as it was (back when) to hear three great talents being added to the already impressive cast, I was dubious that four different actors (particularly such well known ones) playing a single character was going to work.

I can honestly say that the substitutions for Ledger did work, and in fact the changes seem so finely woven into the fabric of the film that it’s hard to imagine it being any other way. Depp, Law and Farrell’s appearances don’t last that long (suprisingly, Farrell is probably on-screen the most, then Law and then Depp), but each put their distinct stamp on the proceedings while simultaneously fitting in very well with Ledger’s performance. Like the fantasy visuals, it’s hard to explain in words – you really do need to see it for yourself to truly “get it.”

Alongside Ledger, we have some fine supporting performances from the likes of model-turned-actress, Lily Cole (sweet and innocent with a hint of mischief under the surface), Andrew Garfield (quick-witted and fun to watch), Verne Troyer (playing an often rude but nonetheless loveable character), Christopher Plummer as the titular Dr. (who’s pretty much perfect for the role) and Tom Waits as The Devil (a genius piece of casting if ever there was one).

At almost two hours, I felt Doctor Parnassus was a little bit on the long side, with numerous scenes that could have been heavily trimmed or perhaps even removed completely. But even at its weakest, there’s always something interesting to look at or a strange atmosphere to soak up.

Doctor Parnassus may not be what you’d call a perfect film, but there’s enough visual wonder and conveyance (whether coherent or not) of Gilliam’s unmatched imagination that I felt I got my time and money’s worth. Gilliam fans will get more out of it than the average movie goer, but for those who love to be transported to fantastical worlds, the film is worth seeing.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus hits U.S. theaters on Christmas Day, 2009.

• Full Trailer For The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• New ‘Doctor Parnassus’ Clips Look Great
• New Images From ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’
• A Look At Depp, Law and Farrell In ‘Doctor Parnassus’
• Heath Ledger’s Final Movie Opening In Cannes
• First Footage of Heath Ledger In ‘Doctor Parnassus’

Short Version: While some may view it as spoofing-by-the-numbers, Black Dynamite is still a worthy send-up of the blaxploitation genre.

Screen Rant guest review of 'Black Dynamite'

Black Dynamite, directed by Scott Sanders, is a glorious mash-up spoof of 1970s grind house and blaxploitation movies.  It stars Michael Jai White, most recently seen as Gambol in The Dark Knight.

The “story” centers on Black Dynamite avenging the death of his bother, who was apparently dealing drugs. Of course the brother wasn’t really dealing dope, but was instead being framed by “The Man.” If you can’t tell yet the plot is classic blaxploitation and the semi-familiar players all admirably fill their rolls, toting names such as “Cream Corn,” “Tasty Freeze” and “Chicago Wind.”  For you fans of The Best D*mn Sports Show Period, John Salley even makes a guest appearance as a hood named “Kotex.”

The first 2/3 of Black Dynamite is ripe with all the sophomoric humor one might associate with any Judd Apatow production, which (to me) is a good thing.  For those of you who remember the movie Airplane! you will appreciate a great joke involving a boom mike. Jokes regarding the low budgets of grindhouse movies are rife throughout this film.  A particularly funny one involves the “tears” that are and then aren’t flowing in an emotional scene between Black Dynamite and Honeybee.  Everything is up for parody in this movie.

What ultimately makes this film so enjoyable is the way it takes the tropes of blaxploitation and grindhouse films from the 1970s, and somehow makes them seem fresh. Even the old caricature of the solitary hero just back from Vietnam is played for laughs, as Black Dynamite consistently refers to the wrong country, every time he suffers another flashback while on the violent search for his brother’s murderer. And it’s a quest which ascends the ladder of culprits all the way to the top.

I don’t think I’m giving away anything by revealing that the “surprise” archvillain is Tricky Dick Nixon himself (who else would it be, really?) and that the ex-Pres is surprisingly handy with a pair of nunchucks. Even the whole “diabolical plot” created by The Man – to shrink the “member” size of African American males – is a hilarious send-up of a stereotype; almost every joke has a reason for being in the film and seems to have been wittily thought out.

Before too long I knew what was going to happen in every scene of this movie (which says more about the number of B-movies I’ve seen and less with the predictability of the movie itself), but unlike repetitive and uninspired drek like Transformers 2 (and despite the fairly bizarre nature of the climax), I still laughed a lot, as did a fair portion of the audience.

If you like blaxploitation, grindhouse B-movies or just a good, funny spoof, you’ll like Black Dynamite.

(Thanks to guest writer Sulai Sivadel for the review.)

Black Dynamite is currently playing in the following locations and theaters:

• Black Dynamite Blowing Up on Screens Big and Small!
• Black Dynamite Coming to Theaters In October
• Black Dynamite Red Band Trailer Goes Green
• Black Dynamite Fights Smack In The Orphanages!
• Pirates of the Caribbean 4 Has a Plot
• The Taking of Pelham 123 Review

Short Version: Law Abiding Citizen is a satisfying (and at times funny) revenge movie that unfortunately loses its way in the last 20 minutes.

Screen Rant reviews Law Abiding Citizen

It seems like Law Abiding Citizen is one in a series of husband/father avenges the death/mistreatment of his family movies spawned by the success of Taken (next in line is the Mel Gibson-starring Edge of Darkness).

In this one we have Gerard Butler as Clyde Shelton, loving father and husband (established quite effectively in just the first couple of minutes of the film) up against Jamie Foxx as prosecutor Nick Rice in a game of psychological cat and mouse.

Clyde’s wife and very young daughter are brutally murdered (his wife, before his eyes) by a couple of burglars who break into his home. In order to guarantee that at least one of the perpetrators gets the death sentence, Nick cuts a plea bargain with the other, who will only serve five years. He does this without first consulting with Clyde, who doesn’t buy Nick’s argument of it being better to see some justice served rather than take the chance that both men go free. Within the first 10 minutes you’ll get the entire set up for the film.

Cut to 10 years later – Nick now has a 9 year old daughter and the death row inmate is about to be executed. What should be a standard death by injection goes horribly wrong in a scene that will probably have you cringing in your seat at least a little. Soon after the bad guy who only served five years gets put in a compromising position by Clyde – and he is going to have a very, very bad (last) day.

One thing leads to another and Nick determines that Clyde is the guy behind both deaths. In a scene that frankly makes no sense other than to show Gerard Butler’s naked butt, the cops capture him and take him in. It soon becomes clear that Clyde wanted more than revenge – he wants to expose the corrupt justice system where compromises are made and the letter of the law sometimes leads to injustice.

Murders of those involved in the plea deal continue to take place even with Clyde behind bars, where he makes a series of odd and interesting requests – all of which turn out to be made for very specific reasons. Of course the big mystery is how these things continue to happen despite the fact Clyde is behind bars – who is his accomplice? Unfortunately the longer this goes on, the bigger the shovel that is needed to dig out the answer to this question, and the solution is hard to swallow.

Gerard Butler basically chews the scenery and Jamie Foxx isn’t given a whole lot to do here other than look and act solemn.

The movie is very violent, at times quite funny (Gerard gets some great lines that had the audience laughing out loud) and has at least one scene that comes at you out of nowhere with a hell of a punch. I’m a big fan of this sort of film being a husband and father myself, and was really enjoying it up until about the final 20 minutes where it took a turn in a direction that ends up putting a big damper on the experience. The ending seals the deal and really left me pretty cold (unfortunately).

So while the ending is pretty unsatisfying, I had a lot of fun for most of the movie. So overall if you’re into this sort of film and you’re a fan of Gerard Butler and/or Jamie Foxx I recommend Law Abiding Citizen.

• Law Abiding Citizen First Trailer
• New Posters: Saw VI, Extract, Gamer & Lots More
• New Posters: Where The Wild Things Are, Michael Jackson & More!
• Gerard Butler Is In For 300 Prequel/Sequel?
• Mike Tyson Wants Jamie Foxx To Play Him In Biopic
• A Perfect Getaway Review

Short version: While far from perfect, Whiteout does manage to keep you guessing until the end and ultimately doesn’t leave you feeling ripped off.

Screen Rant’s Paul Young reviews Whiteout

A while back, Kate Beckinsale was asked about her involvement with the next Underworld movie and she explained that she was done wearing tight leather outfits. I thought she might be serious, but man, she didn’t have to go overboard on the next film by walking around 95% of the time wearing a parka! But I’ve got to give credit to whoever wrote the opening scene for Whiteout, Oscar-worthy material my friend – in a scene that was obviously written to appeal to the young male audience, Beckinsale walks through the snow into her room and promptly removes most (read: not enough) of her clothing in order to take a shower.

The scene does nothing to move along, set up, or explain the story of Whiteout and is sure to become “Most Unnecessary (and Gratuitous) Scene of the Year.” That being said, based on the graphic novel by Greg Rucka, Whiteout is a decent enough attempt at a Fall movie season thriller.

Set at a U.S. Geological camp at the South Pole in Antarctica only three days before winter starts, Beckinsale plays U.S. Marshall Carrie Stetko, and she has some issues with trust. When a body, or “popsicle,” is discovered in the ice by pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), Stetko and camp doctor Dr. John Fury (Tom Skerritt) head out to investigate.

Their investigation leads them to realize that a murder has occurred and that the killer is still at large; and, seeing as how they are at the most remote place on the planet, there’s a better than good chance the killer is still in the camp. Along the way, she meets U.N. detective Robert Pryce, played by The Spirit’s Gabriel Macht, and together they hunt the killer and try to recover some lost Russian items.

The writers do a good job of throwing in plenty of misdirection and some red herrings to keep audiences guessing (although I pegged the twist about ¾ of the way through). What director Dominic Sena (Swordfish, Gone in Sixty Seconds) could have left out were all the hazy, orange saturated flashbacks. I sort of understand what he was trying to do with them but he only needed to do it once and not the three or four times he choose to go with. Also, he could have left out the “ah-ha” moment as a flashback. Once the twist is revealed, it’s not that hard to connect the dots and by flashing back Sena insults the audience.

What Whiteout tries to do (emphasis on tries), is make the audience feel the solidarity and aloneness of being at the bottom of the earth, but that’s very hard to do because it seems like dozens of people are living and working down there and it’s a party every day. Heck, I want to go just drink off the “million year old ice.” Here’s a tip for all directors that want me to feel like I’m alone: Stop putting so many people in your film! Stetko is literally alone for maybe 5 minutes the entire film, even the shower scene is interrupted after 30 seconds.

The action scenes in the snow and blizzards are a neat idea but they aren’t really done right because of all the CGI. Everything ends up looking blurry, out of focus and ultimately is just too hard to discern. The idea of fighting in a blizzard does lend itself to some interesting concepts but it just didn’t work here, which leads me to my next point.

There is WAY too much CGI in a movie like this. I have feared for some time now that directors were beginning to lean on the CGI crutch far too often and this just goes to prove my point. The opening scene of a Russian plane flying and then crashing in the Antarctic would have been super cool to watch but the whole thing is done in CG. I don’t see how it’s cheaper to hire a team of CG artists to design everything but the sky instead of just renting a plane for a day and then adding some digital snow but I guess that’s why I don’t sign the checks.

Another thing that bothered me was the ending – I saw it coming long before it happened and it seemed like the writers took the easy way out. The whole scene feels very much like the Necromonger walking into the sun’s rays from Chronicles of Riddick. You’ll know what I mean after you watch it. Also, the killer is very scary and I never really felt Stetko’s anxiety or any impending doom for any of the characters.

I’ve said it before in my Observe and Report review but I don’t really need to see a line of flopping man junk running across the screen for me to enjoy a film. Oh yes, there is a scene like that in Whiteout, it’s short and at the beginning but again, unnecessary to the plot and didn’t help set the mood or surroundings at all. In fact, it goes against everything the movie portrays about the extreme cold at the South Pole. We are told that it gets to -65 degree Celsius and you begin to experience hypothermia after three minutes. Don’t know about you, but I don’t need any frozen tundra down unda!

Overall though, those are minor gripes on a mostly entertaining film. If you’re looking for something new to watch this weekend that isn’t animated, Whiteout is a solid choice and will make for a decent night out. There’s no way it beats out 9 for number one this weekend, but hopefully it puts Gamer out of play and kills off Final Destination for the number two spot.

• ‘Whiteout’ Trailer Brings the Heat
• New Posters: Saw VI, Extract, Gamer & Lots More
• Law Abiding Citizen Review
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review
• A Perfect Getaway Review
• Kate Beckinsale May Not Be In Underworld 4?

Short Version: Much like Mila Kunis’ character in the film, Extract teases – and while it’s an enjoyable journey, there’s no big payoff and it leaves us wanting more.

Screen Rant reviews Extract

Extract comes to us from Mike Judge, the same guy who brought us Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill, Idiocracy and Office Space. B&B notwithstanding, Judge’s writing generally delivers low-key (subtle might be the wrong word) humor – the kind that may not cause you to fall out of your chair with laughter, but tickles the back of your brain and sits with you for a spell. Sometimes it takes a while to sink in how really funny it was.

Maybe I forgot that going in – and on the heels of such “laff-riot” comedy as delivered in The Hangover I was hoping for more belly laughs here. While Extract was funny, it left me feeling like I’d been teased by some hot babe. While enjoyable as I sat through it – I yearned for more of a satisfactory, um, conclusion.

Right up front we meet “hot in a working class way” babe Cindy (Mila Kunis) and within about two minutes we see just what sort of person she is in a rather funny opening scene where a couple of guitar shop clerks fawn over her. From there we cut over to our “hero” Joel’s (Jason Bateman) factory and are introduced to a variety of characters who work for him. His company produces extract, as in Almond Extract, the stuff your mom has in her pantry to bake cookies and cakes. He’s come up with some unique way to preserve the flavor better than the competition and they manufacture a variety of flavors. Boring? Yes, but apparently not to Cindy (much to Joel’s surprise) once she arrives at the factory.

We have some stereotypical characters on the factory floor – dude who plays in a rock band and drives a forklift (poorly), newly hired (and wide-eyed) young Hispanic guy just happy to have a job and Step (Clifton Collins Jr.) as a redneck blue-collar guy with aspirations of being the floor manager. But the one who stood out for me was Beth Grant as Mary, the curmudgeon old lady who’s worked there for 14 years – complaining every… single… day. While she played the role well, she annoyed me beyond the point of humor to where I hoped she would come to some messy end in the film.

Basically the story is about Joel feeling like his life is pretty mundane despite his financial success and his frustration with his “brother-sister type” marriage which suffers from a severe lack of sex. There’s quite a funny running joke about him having to get home before his wife (played by Kristen Wiig) puts on her sweat pants for the evening. Anyway, Cindy comes into the scene and besides being very attractive she knows how to “work it” and let out enough rope to get guys thinking she’s interested.

Ben Affleck and Jason Bateman in 'Extract'

While we also have the always enjoyable J.K. Simmons as a manager who calls everyone “dinkus” and a guest appearance by Gene Simmons as a sleazy ambulance chaser lawyer, the real stand out supporting actor was Ben Affleck as Dean – Joel’s laid back, semi-cosmic-thinking bartender best friend. Affleck was given pretty much all the best lines in the movie, including one exchange where Joel says “hot girls need jobs, too” and after a perfectly timed pause Dean replies “Do they… really?”

Back to the annoying character side of things we have Joel’s stalker-like neighbor (played with perfect annoying syrupiness by David Koechner) who seems to lay in wait for Joel to come home and is oblivious to any sense of urgency or business on Joel’s part. If nothing else the guy highlights how overly polite and whipped Joel is when he can’t even firmly tell the guy to beat it as the conversation drags on interminably. Bateman is a master of the understated character and he’s completely convincing here in the role of frustrated guy who’s too polite and weak to change his life.

There are lots of funny bits sprinkled throughout the film (among others, scenes with the young, blonde pool cleaner dude are pretty funny) – but it never gets to the point where you’re laughing out loud for more than a quick “Ha!” (if that makes any sense). However as I pointed out above, I have a feeling that this is one of those movies that you’ll appreciate more with repeated viewings (I’ll probably end up wishing I gave it an extra half star) – there are a LOT of gems in the script, all delivered in a low key way that almost underplays them too much. If you go, stay at least a couple of minutes after the credits start as a plot point is resolved (rather weakly) there.

So overall I enjoyed it as it went along but in the end I was hoping for a bit more satisfaction – especially at the end of the film, which just kind of tapers off… While I’d say it’s worth seeing, I was really wanting more from Mike Judge and Extract.

• Finally, A Non-Apatow Comedy!
• Beavis and Butt-Head Promote ‘Extract’ Web Trailer
• Comic-Con 2009: Extract
• New Posters: Saw VI, Extract, Gamer & Lots More
• Law Abiding Citizen Review
• A Perfect Getaway Review

Short Version: G.I. Joe is a summer popcorn action movie done right.

Screen Rant reviews G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

I’ll start right off by saying that G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra is what the Transformers franchise should be.

Following months of trailers and clips that frankly, made this movie look like it was going to be awful, imagine my surprise when I actually ended up enjoying it. I don’t recall ever seeing a marketing campaign that so made me NOT want to see a movie that turned out to be decent.

G.I Joe starts out unexpectedly centuries ago with a man named McCullen about to be punished for some heinous crime. He goes on about how his ancestors will avenge him and whatnot and it’s pretty overdramatic – from this scene I wasn’t really sure what to expect as far as the tone of the film.

From there it jumps to “not too far in the future” and we see Christopher Eccleston giving a commanding presentation to the heads of NATO – he’s converted nanotechnology developed to help save lives into a weapon. In missile form it can disintegrate anything it touches within seconds and will keep on devouring everything in its path until it is deactivated. It is a formidable weapon.

A purchase is made and an elite team of soldiers which includes Duke (Channing Tatum) and “Ripcord” (Marlan Wayans) is tasked with delivering four of these small projectiles to some location – of course they never make it there. On the way the first battle/action sequence of the movie takes place and it was pretty impressive. We get our first look at future tech with the ship the bad guys use to attack the convoy.

Up until this point the film actually looks like your standard, straight up action film. That is superseded by the more cartoony aspect when that ship lands and the Baroness (Sienna Miller) and a bunch of armored, silver masked antagonists come out and start shooting up the place with cool beam weapons.

It turns out there is history between Duke and the Baroness, causing the mission to go awry. This event also leads to Duke and Ripcord being taken to G.I. Joe headquarters, invited by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). We see the massive “Joe” headquarters and soon our boys are put through training and become a part of the team. Along the way we meet Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and brainy Scarlett O’Hara (Rachel Nichols).

Of course the bad guys want to acquire the nano-missiles and the plot revolves around their acquisition and the how and why of their use in the goal of (naturally) world domination.

Now we’ve been talking about G.I Joe here for months, and not exactly in a positive light. Frankly the footage shown has made the film look awful in that cheesy “Transformers” kind of way. Well I’m here to tell you that no one is more surprised than me that I actually thought it was pretty good – maybe even more than just pretty good. Don’t get me wrong – it’s good, but summer action movie good, so keep that in mind.

One of the screenwriters, Stuart Beattie co-wrote all three Pirates of the Caribbean movies and 30 Days of Night (how’s that for variety?) and director Stephen Sommers brought us The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing (but don’t hold that one against him).

What was good? Every damned scene with Snake Eyes in it for one thing. Ray Park ROCKED as the mute character (who left me wondering how he could breath with that facemask on). The sword fight scenes were fantastic, and I loved that he wasn’t strict about only using martial arts weapons – he did not hesitate to pull out a gun if he deemed it the most effective weapon of the moment.

My first reaction to the “accelerator suits” in the trailer was an eye-roll, but they turned out to be one of the coolest things in the movie. They were used in a Paris car chase sequence that was awesome and included Scarlett doing some wild motorcycle riding through Paris traffic in addition to Duke and Ripcord tearing through streets chasing the bad guys.

Another thing that was unexpected was the inclusion of “serious” scenes in the film – in particular a flashback to Duke in the Middle East in a war zone and him at a a military funeral afterwards almost seemed like they came out of a dramatic film. Actually the overall tone of the film was that they approached it fairly straight-faced. There wasn’t much of the feeling that director Stephen Sommers was actively trying to make this a movie based on a toy, animated series and comic book – the film took itself fairly seriously, and that worked.

Oh, and there was a little unexpected cameo by an actor who is usually pretty goofy in films, but wasn’t here, and I enjoyed seeing him this way.

Finally, I liked the fact that there was humor in the film, but it was (with one or two exceptions) very deftly done – not like the “yuk yuk” in your face Transformers humor. It was here and there, but didn’t seem inserted just because “hey, we need a big laugh here.” Oh, and there were nods to the original toy ads, mentioning “life like hair” and “kung fu grip.”

What wasn’t so great? Well, not much, really. Despite the movie taking itself seriously overall, there was enough in the film to remind you that it was indeed a summer action flick based on a toy. The Baroness in the arctic circle with a coat open to expose her deep cleavage, “The Doctor” speaking in an over the top, gravelly melodramatic voice and a few other bits like that. I also felt the movie ran a little long and could have been trimmed down by 15 minutes or so.

The movie is rated PG-13 for action violence and a few scenes of burned/deformed faces – but unlike Transformers 2 there was very little foul language or sexual references. If you bring your 10 year old to this, you won’t be squirming in your seat, but you might have them look away at some of the facial stuff. As to the whole “G.I. Joe isn’t American in the movie” issue – it really wasn’t one. The movie opens with regular Army soldiers and a couple of them end up on the team in pivotal roles. Tempest in a teacup is what that turned out to be as far as I’m concerned.

So if you’re looking for a final action movie this summer that you can bring the kids to, I would recommend G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

(Feel free to discuss the movie WITHOUT spoilers below – if you want to talk about it freely WITH spoilers please go to our G.I. Joe spoiler discussion page)

• New G.I. Joe Character Posters, Extended TV Spot
• Marlon Wayans Swears G.I. Joe Is More Action Than Jokes
• Win A G.I. Joe DVD Prize Pack! – Winner!
• Six New G.I. Joe Images
• G.I. Joe: Destro’s Mask & Other New Pics
• ‘G.I. Joe’ Early Reviews & Awesome Viral Video

Short Version: A Perfect Getaway isn’t perfect, but Timothy Olyphant makes it entertaining.

Screen Rant reviews A Perfect Getaway

A Perfect Getaway was written and directed by David Twohy, the gentleman who brought us the Vin Diesel vehicles Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick. Here he brings us a very different type of movie: The story of a newlywed couple on their honeymoon in Hawaii, trying to figure out if any of the couples around them are murderers.

Now I have a fairly strict “no spoiler” policy in my reviews, but there is no way to properly review this film without talking about the fact that there is a “twist” in the story. I won’t say what that twist is but there is one.

Cliff (Steve Zahn) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich) are a newlywed couple – we see a few scenes videotaped from their wedding reception of their friends wishing them well before they leave for Hawaii. They’re young and full of the promise of a life together.

They decide to take a long hike to one of the most remote and beautiful beaches in the islands. On the road to the trailhead they run into a creepy young couple (Chris “soon to be Thor” Hemsworth and Marley Shelton) who immediately sets your radar off – the guy gets offended that Cliff and Cydney (man, I hate stupidly spelled common names) hesitated at giving them a ride and they part ways. Later on our intrepid couple runs into Nick (Timothy Olyphant) and Gina (Kiele Sanchez), another young but more “wilderness ready” couple. They decide to team up and continue on together, all the while leery of the other couple they met on the road, suspecting them to be the killers of another young newlywed couple not long ago.

Of course the question is which couple are the murderers, and what happens once they are revealed.

A Perfect Getaway has two very different parts – the lead up to the discovery and what comes after. Up until the reveal, while the film has plenty of moments of tension it’s actually quite funny. Olyphant (from Hitman) steals the show as far as I’m concerned – he was very charming and funny, moreso to movie fans I think because much of the humor between him and Zahn (who plays a budding screenwriter) was sort of winking at the audience. In one scene shortly after Olyphant appears in the film and we don’t know if he might be one of the killers, he mentions to Zahn the introduction of a “red snapper” (actually red herring) into a film to throw off the audience. There are more of these types of little jokes as well as others, and to me they were a pleasant surprise. Some say there were overused, but I got a kick out of them.

What wasn’t a surprise was the result of the twist, and frankly I found it quite improbable based on what had come before. I would have preferred a more conventional non-Shyamalan attempt at making the story “different.”

From the point of the reveal the film shifts gears big time into a non-stop cat and mouse game with plenty of edge of your seat moments, violence and some pretty realistic (but not overly done) gore. So while very different, what came before and after the big reveal was pretty entertaining (although I actually enjoyed the first half of the film more) – but the nature of the twist just seemed contrived.

Overall I thought it was pretty good – I particularly enjoyed Olyphant, Milla Jovovich looked attractive as ever and acted well, Zahn is always fun to watch and Kiele Sanchez was gorgeous (the scene in which she first appears is quite… distracting). And for the Chris Hemsworth as Thor doubters, his appearance in A Perfect Getaway might go a ways towards convincing you he might be able to pull it off with about another 20 pounds of muscle on him.

• Hemsworth, Zahn & Jovovich Want A Perfect Getaway
• Timothy Olyphant Open to Hitman 2
• Whiteout Review
• The Fourth Kind Review
• Extract Review
• Law Abiding Citizen Review

Short version: While Michael Mann’s Public Enemies is very good, it’s missing the spark that could have pushed it to “great.”

Screen Rant reviews Public Enemies

If you’re looking for a low key alternative to the summer blockbuster movie season, then you’ll welcome the Michael Mann-directed Public Enemies, starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard. Having said that, don’t expect to be blown away by this surprisingly low-key film.

In Public Enemies we are presented with a (seemingly) romanticized story of the fall of John Dillinger, famous bank robber of the 1930s. Johnny Depp brings his considerable screen charisma to the role of Dillinger, while Christian Bale has the unenviable position of playing the fairly dour Melvin Purvis – the FBI agent that brought Dillinger down.

Right from the start of the film we get a sense of Dillinger’s loyalty to his gang, his skill at planning and the outrageous level of confidence of the man. He’s been separated from his cohorts, but is soon reunited and is back in the groove, knocking off banks in less than two minutes “flat.” We are also shown a “popular” side when he robs banks but does not take any money from customers that are present. He seems to care for the plight of the average person during this era of the Great Depression – but there is some self-serving at work as well: He is quite aware of his popularity with the general public and goes out of his way to cultivate a “star” persona.

His uber-confident personality is also demonstrated in his approach to Billie Frachette (played by Marion Cotillard) – a no-nonsene, not a doubt in his mind that she will be his attitude that of course turns out to be correct. She is a bit hesitant when she learns who he is, but his reaction to her checkered history (it doesn’t bother him at all) and his supreme confidence wins her over. However she is far from a pushover or someone who is easily misled or manipulated by him.

J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is gaining power in Washington D.C. and is in the process of forming the FBI. In order to prove his (and his organization’s) worth to political doubters he makes the capture of John Dillinger his number one priority and puts agent Purvis (Christian Bale) in charge. Hoover is all about modern scientific methods instead of brute force, but it turns out that it will take a combination of that and some “old school” to capture the Dillinger gang.

We get to see a bit of Dillinger in his glory, but eventually we see the downfall of him and his gang. He is portrayed as a bad guy who is so charming that you actually feel bad for him when he finally goes down – what you have to keep in mind of course is that even if he’s not doing (much) killing himself, his “boys” certainly aren’t shy about it. There’s plenty of gunfire and blood in the film, but director Michael Mann manages to make you feel empathy towards Depp’s character, even though Dillinger shows no remorse about his life of crime.

Outside of Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard, who were both VERY good in the film (really when ISN’T Depp great?) the film seemed to keep the audience at arm’s length. It just felt kind of distant and quiet despite the violence and some really great shoot-outs. Christian Bale was good, and he left the gravel out of his voice for this role, but for me he never really disappeared into the role the way that Depp did.

The other thing that was very different about Public Enemies is that it was shot digitally – there was no “film” feel to it… it looked more like how a Blu-ray disc looks on an HDTV. Overly crisp, detailed and bright. I like that look on my TV, but on the big screen of a movie theater it just seemed odd and out of place.

Overall if you’re a fan of Johnny Depp and crime dramas (this isn’t an action film, folks) then I think you’ll enjoy Public Enemies.

• New Public Enemies Trailer Even Better Than The First
• New Public Enemies Featurette
• Slick New Trailer For Public Enemies Starring Johnny Depp
• Red Carpet Premiere for ‘Public Enemies’
• New ‘Public Enemies’ Poster: Why So Serious?
• New Posters: Inglourious Basterds, Public Enemies, Transformers 2 & More!

Short version: Blood: The Last Vampire is a fun (if forgettable) film with some extremely well choreographed fight sequences. It’s really only for the action fans out there – anyone else may want to skip it.

Screen Rant Reviews 'Blood: The Last Vampire'

Blood: The Last Vampire is one of those action movies whose faults can be overlooked in favor of some entertaining action. There are plenty of problems to be found here: From cheesy dialogue and acting to the sometimes fake-looking CGI. But when the movie is in full-on action mode – that is, a young woman in a schoolgirl outfit hacking up vampires – it’s a lot of fun. And the fact that it stands at a tidy 90 minutes will means it’s easily re-watchable.

Based on the 2000 anime movie of the same name, Blood: The Last Vampire follows a half-human, half-vampire called Saya who spends her time hunting those who are half her kind: Vampires. Loosely working with an organization known as “The Council” which devotes itself to the hunting and killing of vampires hiding amongst the human population, Saya enrolls in a high school on an American army base in Tokyo.

Proclaimed by Saya herself, the only reason she lives is to hunt down and kill the “oldest and most powerful demon,” known as Onigen, who she believes was responsible for the death of her father when she was very young.

Most of The Last Vampire seems like padding in between each action scene. The dialogue is pretty lame at times (sometimes downright eye-rolling), and the storyline doesn’t have much to it other than a generic revenge plot. It also suffers from some not-so-great acting at times, with an army general and one of “The Council’s” agents being particularly questionable in the performance department.

But does all that really matter in a movie called Blood: The Last Vampire? The name (along with all the promo material released for the movie) promises action, not an Oscar-worthy drama. And that’s exactly what we get for the most part: The action scenes are very well choreographed, which isn’t surprising considering the guy who is credited as the “action director” here is Corey Yuen, who worked on the first two Transporter films (which, if nothing else, were impressive in the fight scene department) and a few Jet Li movies. Three action/fight scenes in The Last Vampire particularly stand out, one involving Saya’s mentor battling a dozen guys in a forest, another being a sequence in an alley, and the last being the obligatory bigger-than-the-rest end battle sequence.

More buckets of blood than you can count are spilled in this movie (as you would expect with “blood” in the title), although the blood spattering is an area where the cartoonish CGI weakens the film. Perhaps it was on purpose that the blood should look fake to give the violence that cartoonish feel, but I would have much preferred if they had gone the Shogun Assassin or Kill Bill route and used spraying blood set up by real-life devices as opposed to creating it on a computer. But again, the way the action is choreographed, along with the fact that the movie doesn’t really focus on the blood all that much once it’s flying through the air, sort of makes that weakness ultimately not matter all that much.

I was afraid going into The Last Vampire that there would be an overuse of the wire-work style of action scenes we saw in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or House of Flying Daggers. And although it’s used a little here and there throughout The Last Vampire, it’s never used too much. I don’t necessarily dislike that style of action, but personally it pulls me out of a film more than “realistic action” does (if you could call flipping through the air and chopping the heads off of vampires “realistic”). Most of the action scenes consist of swordplay, and many, many vampires and all other kinds of demons getting their bodies slashed and heads chopped off.

Playing the lead-killing lady, Saya, is Korean actress Ji-hyun Jeon, who is going by the more “Westernized” name of Gianna Jun for this movie. This is her first action role, and a big change from the type of films she’s mostly known for (romantic comedies and dramas). But she is an adequate lead, doing what needs to be done. Again, it’s not a role that calls for Oscar-worthy acting but rather the conviction that she can kick some serious ass… and trust me, she does so in spades.

What must be noted is the beautiful cinematography here by Hang-Sang Poon (Fearless, Kung Fu Hustle). It gives a nice, strange contrast to the bloody violence happening on-screen. At times the film looks cartoonish, but since it’s based on, yes, a cartoon, perhaps that was a purposeful homage to the source material. A ridiculously silly rooftop chase sequence aside, the cartoon quality of the film just adds to the fun a lot of the time.

So, even if Blood: The Last Vampire won’t be winning any acting or screenplay awards, it’s nonetheless a fun movie with some very entertaining action sequences. It’s an entirely forgettable movie and never is it what you would called “great.” But for what it is, it’s fun.

Was there really anything else to be expected?

Blood: The Last Vampire opens in the US in limited release on July 10th, 2009.

• New ‘Blood: The Last Vampire’ Poster & Trailer
• Cool New Images From ‘Blood: The Last Vampire’
• ‘Ong Bak 2: The Beginning’ Review
• Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant Review
• Horror Plus Action: Blade
• SR Pick [Video]: Milo Ventimiglia Reenacts ‘Oldboy’ Fight Scene

Short version: If you’re a fan of Travolta and Denzel you’ll probably like The Taking of Pelham 123.

Screen Rant reviews The Taking of Pelham 123

The Taking of Pelham 123 is a remake of the highly regarded 1974 film The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, which starred old-school actors Walter Matthau, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizando and Earl Hindman. I will confess that it’s probably been at least 20 years since I’ve seen it and don’t remember much about it – but I plan on renting it very soon to watch it again.

Like in the original, the story revolves around a handful of men who hijack a New York City subway train in an attempt to extort millions of dollars from the city using hostages as leverage. Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber,  a console dispatcher at the rail control center of the NYC subway who happens to be on duty when the hijacking takes place. John Travolta plays Ryder, the extremely hard-edged leader of the train hijacking.

While the setup for the film is a pretty typical hostage taker vs. negotiator story, albeit with a “civilian” (Denzel) dealing with the bad guy (Travolta), there is plenty to keep you guessing. Ryder gives the city one hour to deliver $10 million or he will begin killing hostages, one every minute. Of course at first the good guys don’t know who they’re dealing with, but it doesn’t take long for them to determine they need to take Ryder and his crew very seriously.

Director Tony Scott gave the film a highly stylized look that was employed in overdrive during the opening credits which while cool, was thankfully used less throughout the film. They tried to inject some ambiguity into the plot in order to keep things interesting for the audience, but while Ryder’s plan was pretty evident early on, it wasn’t clear what was going to happen with Denzel’s character.

I enjoyed seeing Travolta chew up the scenery as an unadulterated bad guy, James Gandolfini was great as the mayor and it was a pleasure seeing John Turturro in an authority role not acting like a total idiot (*cough* Transformers *cough*). I also liked the New York City vibe that Scott imbued into the film. What didn’t fit was fitting a cross town car chase sequence into what was shaping up to be a fairly tense thriller – and it was even pointed out by characters in the film that they should have just used a helicopter.

There are plenty of tense moments in the movie and the interplay between the characters is very good – Tony Scott keeps you guessing as to who these characters really are and how everything will play out. You won’t be bored while watching this film.

Overall The Taking of Pelham 123 wasn’t all that bad despite what some critics are saying, and if you’re a fan of the actors listed above you’ll probably enjoy it.

• Mid-Week Movie News Wrap Up – April 2, 2009
• Tony Scott Talks Alien Prequel & Warriors Remake
• ‘Unstoppable’ Without Denzel Washington
• Chris Pine In Talks To Be ‘Unstoppable’
• Weekend Movie News Wrap Up: April 26, 2009
• Theatrical Trailer for The Book of Eli

Short version: Angels & Demons is better than The Da Vinci Code and if you’re a fan of the books you’ll probably enjoy it – otherwise… I suppose there are worse ways to kill a couple of hours.

Screen Rant reviews Angels and Demons

I was not a fan of The Da Vinci Code.

Just thought I should get that out there right of the bat. I found that film incredibly boring and dull, and Tom Hanks just didn’t work for me in the role.

Having said that, Angels & Demons is an improvement over the previous film.

While I undersand that Angels & Demons was written prior to The Da Vinci Code, in the film it is treated as a sequel instead of a prequel. The events of the previous film are alluded to here in order to make that very clear.

This time there is some high tech involved in the guise of the CERN Large Hadron Collider. You know, that massive atom smasher they built in Europe that people thought would create a black hole and swallow up the Earth? So something almost as whacky happens there: Physicist Vittoria Vetra (played by Ayelet Zurer) uses the collider to create a significant quantity of… antimatter.

Yes, you read that right – and no you haven’t stumbled upon our Star Trek review.

Anyway, a priest/physicist (I really thought being a priest was kind of a full time job) observing the experiment is killed and a vial of antimatter is stolen. It was taken by the “Illuminati.” Once again that ancient enemy of the Catholic church surfaces in this film to cause problems for the Vatican.

On the heels of the death of the Pope and despite their feelings toward him, the Vatican calls upon symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to help them track down the location of the antimatter before Vatican City is destroyed. He teams up with Vetra to follow clues that lead them all over Rome with only a few hours before mass destruction.

To say the story is implausible would be an understatement, but if you just go along for the ride and don’t try to think too hard I suppose it’s entertaining enough. The opening scene at CERN was pretty cool but the movie soon bogs down once it gets going. There are some characters I liked – Ewan Macgregor as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, the Pope’s assistant, and Pierfrancesco Favino as Inspector Olivetti. As to Tom Hanks – he does a good enough job but to me this role still doesn’t seem to fit him.

While the film feels pretty bogged down through the middle, towards the end it starts to pick up and actually gets a bit exciting. However some of the ridiculous plot points take some serious suspension of disbelief (that, or just ignore them) if you are to enjoy this film at all.

• Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon Will Return In ‘The Lost Symbol’
• The Latest Batch O’ Movie Posters
• Teaser Poster For ‘Priest’
• Weekend Movie News Wrap Up: May 17, 2009
• Knowing Review
• Summer 2009: The Season Of Bad Movies [Updated]

Short version: While not exactly great, Wolverine is better than X-Men 3 and is a decent start to the 2009 Summer movie season.

Screen Rant reviews X-Men Origins: Wolverine

So it’s finally here… The next X-Men movie, Wolverine. There’s been MUCH controversy surrounding this film (at least to fans of the comic book titles) – certain characters injected into the film that shouldn’t be there (a young Cyclops, for example), the height difference between Wolverine and Sabretooth (silly, in my opinion), whether Gambit would have an appropriate Cajun accent, and the biggie: The depiction of “Deadpool” (played by Ryan Reynolds).

For details and reader comments on all this check out this summary post of the Wolverine controversies.

In addition to that we had the April Fool’s day bombshell of a workprint of the movie making its way onto the internet. Would this hurt the box office? Early opening weekend ticket sales indicate that it probably didn’t.

Wolverine follows the life of James Logan from a young boy (in the late 1800s?), through (briefly) a number of wars and takes us through his adamantium skeleton implantation and right up until the point where he loses his memory. As a young boy, we discover that the older boy (Victor Creed) who will become Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber) is actually Logan’s brother.

After a death, the boys go on the run and during the opening title sequence we watch as they fight side by side in a number of wars. During this sequence (which is quite possibly the coolest thing in the entire film) we watch as Victor becomes more and more bloodthirsty as Logan tries to hold him back. Eventually it culminates in the murder of an officer, and the army attempts to execute them both. Too bad both of them have regenerative healing powers and can’t be easily killed.

This is where William Stryker (Danny Huston) comes in and offers them the chance to “really serve their country.” Here is where we meet the other members of Stryker’s team: Agent Zero (not clear on his power), Wade Wilson (assassin with healing ability already?), John Wraith (teleporter), Frederick J. Dukes (future Blob and incredibly strong and resilient) and Bolt (telekinetic powers).

They go on a mission, things get out of hand, and Logan bails on the team. Six years later we find him living in Washington state as a logger with a beautiful woman in a lone cabin. Things look good, but of course they don’t last. One thing leads to another and Logan goes back to Stryker, who wants to turn him into a super-weapon. Logan agrees if he can get revenge on Sabretooth – and warns Stryker that he is now the animal that Stryker always said he was.

As indicated in the previous X-Men movies, things do NOT go well directly after the adamantium implantation, but it is pretty cool to see exactly what went down during and after the procedure.

In order to track down Sabretooth he comes across John Wraith again and the (now) Blob, where we get a bit of a funny scene between the two. From there he seeks out Gambit who, yes, has a slight Cajun accent (almost unnoticeable). [MINOR SPOILER AHEAD] A battle soon ensues between Sabretooth and Wolverine, which is for some bizarre reason interrupted by Gambit, allowing Sabretooth to escape. Within the context of the story and considering Gambit’s reaction to the mention of Victor Creed, it didn’t really make any sense to me. [END SPOILER]

Eventually Wolverine makes it to the secret base where a bunch of mutants who could very well be the cast of the in development film X-Men: First Class. He runs into Weapon XI (previously Wade Wilson aka Deadpool) and the big final beat-down ensues.

So after all this, what’s the verdict?

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not that bad. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty decent – IF you’re not a hardcore fan of the comic book universe. If you’re a fan (which I’m not, really) I’d say all of your fears about characters and their relationships will be realized in the film.

From what I’ve read, fans are going to be pretty mad about the depiction of Wade Wilson (I don’t want to call him Deadpool, since he doesn’t seem to be that character yet) in the film. There’s also the issue of Scott Summers (Cyclops) and Wolverine having met prior to the events of the first X-Men film.

Some of the “adamantium claws” CGI was pretty poor. Why, I have no idea since I thought the claws looked pretty darned good in the previous films. Did the maybe go from mainly mechanical effects to poorly done CGI? Also, with two primary characters using claws to basically rip, shred, stab and disembowel their opponents, the lack of a single drop of blood being shed is highly noticeable and ridiculous. Ane the way in which Wolverine loses his memory… it’s not the actual way in which he loses it, but the certainty on the part of Stryker that it will work that seemed pretty silly.

There was also a scene early on where Agent Zero reloads a couple of handguns in the most ridiculous way possible – I actually laughed out loud when it happened, and that was not the intention of the scene. Then again, that could just be because I’m pretty familiar with handguns.

As to Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson, I’m conflicted. I think Reynolds was a good casting choice, but especially considering that they supposedly went back and added more shots with him, he didn’t have much face time as himself (as opposed to Weapon XI). He got off a couple of minor zingers, but nothing really substantial as far as wisecracks. He did have a very cool scene early on in the film however, where he gets to show off his skills.

So what was good? Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber were great – both individual and when sharing scenes. Some of the action was pretty great, especially the few scenes where Gambit was utilized (would’ve liked to have seen more of that). I also really liked Lynn Collins as Logan’s love interest. Oh, and Wolverine is no longer the “wuss” he was being turned into more and more with each subsequent X-Men film – here he is a bad-ass once again.

Overall X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a not-very-deep, surface-level kind of movie where you don’t really get drawn into the characters very much (although I imagine that’s what director Gavin Hood was trying to accomplish). You just don’t get to know the characters very well outside of Wolverine. Even with all the screen time given to Creed, he still seems one-dimensional (at least until the very end of the film). It’s not as good as the first two X-Men films, but it’s better than X-Men 3.

However if you’re not hung up on the comic book details and don’t look for too much from it, I think you’ll enjoy the film as an action-packed popcorn movie, and a decent opener to the 2009 Summer blockbuster movie season.

• Cool Videos Profile Main Characters In ‘Wolverine’
• (Really) Final Wolverine Trailer
• The Future of Sabretooth in the X-Men Films
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine Concept Art of Deadpool, Sabretooth & More
• Ryan Reynolds Talks Deadpool & Spinoff Possibilities
• Potential Villains of Wolverine 2

Short version: Knowing starts out strong, but despite some impressive (and very intense) visual effects, unravels as it goes on.

Screen Rant reviews Knowing

I went into Knowing very neutral – I hadn’t heard much about it and the premise and trailer looked pretty promising. I realize Nicolas Cage hasn’t exactly been hitting it out of the park lately, but call me crazy: I like the guy despite the crazy hair and eccentric acting.

Knowing opens in 1959, on an elementary school playground – all the kids are running around and having fun except for one little girl, standing off on her own very still. Her name is Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson) and she’s obviously the “weird kid” in the class. She actually reminded me of a young Christina Ricci from her role in the 1991 film The Addams Family.

Anyway, students were supposed to come up with a way to commemmorate something having to do with the school, and she was the one who came up with the winning idea: a time capsule. The teacher asked everyone to draw a picture of what they thought the future would be like 50 years from then, but instead Lucinda filled two sides of a sheet of paper with densely packed, apparantly random numbers.The teacher comes around to collect papers and feels pity for little Lucinda, who just seems out of sorts – and the teacher takes the paper from her, apparently (to me) before she was done.

Cut to present day and we have astrophysicist and MIT professor John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) and his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), living together in a nice home in a heavily wooded area. John’s wife has died not too long ago, and both he and Caleb are struggling to learn to live without her. John is drowning his sorrows in whiskey while trying to teach college class, work as a scientist and raise his son.

Of course we are now at the 50th anniversary of the burial of the time capsule, and Caleb ends up with the list of numbers penned by Lucinda. Even though Koestler has been drinking, one night he becomes curious about the numbers and manages to find the date of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 – not only that, but it seems that the number of people killed that day are also on the paper.

He starts scouring the sheet for other significant dates and finds tons of them – everything from natural disasters to accidents involving airplanes, fires, etc. This freaks him out, and not just for the obvious reasons, but because after the death of his wife he’s come to believe that everything is a result of random chance. This shows quite the opposite.

As a matter of fact he sees that 81 people are supposed to die the very next day, and right about here is where an intriguing premise and beginning of a movie starts to go off the rails. On that next day, he’s watching the news, desperately looking for a disaster that matches up with the prophecy. He finally falls asleep, but has to go pick up his son at school. And what happens? Within yards of where he’s standing during a traffic jam a small airplane crashes into the ground.

Don’t get me wrong… it was actually one of the cooler scenes in the movie, and the most intense (I don’t know when showing people on fire coming out of the wreckage of a burning plane became PG-13 material), but the fact that it happened at the exact location where he was strained credulity.

Being a scientist kind of guy, he tries to learn more about this mystery and tracks down Lucinda’s daughter Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne). Of course at first she thinks he’s a nutjob, but eventually comes around. She has a little girl and both she and Caleb start hearing the same “whispers” in their heads that Lucinda heard. There are also these pale, blond goth looking guys in long black coats who pop up mysteriously from time to time, who are obviously connected to the paper and to what’s happening.

From here John tries to stop the events that are predicted on the paper, and ominously, it seems like the final event which is only days away indicates the end of the world.

OK, a movie like this really hinges on what, precisely, the “secret” is and the ending – that can make or break the movie. The film started out actually quite cool, creepy and VERY intense but as it goes on you start to figure out that these guys that are appearing are one of three things: Angels, demons or aliens. The film throws in some biblical references (and Cage’s character is estranged from his father, a Pastor) and when it comes to the rather fantastic (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way) ending, I suppose depending on your point of view you may call it ambiguous or you’ll say it was actually one thing or another (I’m trying not to give anything away).

I think that if you’re a sci-fi fan the end will be satisfying, if you’re a New Age person you’ll get something different from the ending – and if you’re a Christian it may very well annoy the heck out of you (it did, me).

So in the end, is Knowing worth checking out? It depends – how much can you suspend your disbelief? It’s a cool premise but honestly, it’s got a lot of plot holes that were hard for me to get past by the end of the film. If you don’t think about it too hard you might enjoy it – or you might even find it funny despite its uber-serious intentions.

I’m kind of bummed about it because I’m a huge fan of director Alex Proyas’ Dark City, but this film certainly doesn’t measure up to that.

• WonderCon 2009 – Knowing / Astro Boy Panel
• Win ‘Push’ & ‘Knowing’ on Blu-ray – Winners!
• New Posters For ‘Terminator Salvation,’ ‘Knowing’ & ‘Dark Mirror’
• Two More Clips from Roland Emmerich’s ‘2012’
• The Fourth Kind Review
• Long Lost Image of Nicolas Cage as Superman?

Short version: The International starts out with a strong espionage vibe but is weakened when it strays into “action movie” territory.

Screen Rant reviews The International

I really wanted to walk out of The International having loved it, but the best I can manage is that overall I liked it a lot.

It’s the story of Louis Salinger (Clive Owen), and INTERPOL agent working in France and his attempt to implicate a mega-banking firm in arms dealing. I loved how the film opens – the very first frame puts you right into the film with no preamble. Louis and his partner are trying to “turn” a bank executive and get him to provide evidence of the bank’s misdeeds. Things do not go well within a few short minutes.

It seems that everyone is against Louis and he can make no headway in his investigation. People are being killed and “disappeared” but there is no concrete evidence of the bank’s involvement. He is soon joined by American FBI operative Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts), who has been attempting to work the case state-side, and has also been running into roadblocks.

I don’t dislike Naomi, but I have to say that she stuck out like a sore thumb as soon as she appeared. The first part of the film was shot in Europe, and I felt like I was immersed in the world of espionage – until she came on screen. I bought the actors up until that point completely as the characters they were playing – be it police officers, bankers, lawyers, whatever. But when she appeared it was like “oh look, she’s playing an FBI agent.” She was just terribly miscast in this film.

When the film moved to New York City it lost me even further. Suddenly I didn’t buy any of the characters at all and it took me out of the film. Perhaps if the entire thing had begun in the U.S. and stayed there I would have felt differently, but the differences between the European and U.S. actors/scenes was quite jarring. It went from cool espionage film to typical cop action movie, and not in a good way.

There was one scene in particular that I found extremely over the top and out of place in the film: I dont’ want to spoil it but it takes place at the Guggenheim museum where a big gun battle goes down. The amount of firepower, number of men and the complete and utter disregard for stealth did not fit one iota with what came before or after in the film.

It was like the studio told director Tom Tykwer “hey man, you’re movie’s kind of slow – we need you to stick a huge action set piece right here so you don’t lose the audience.”

Now I don’t know if that’s the case, but it certainly had the reverse effect on me. Once the movie moved back overseas, it started to capture my attention and I started enjoying it once again.

Overall The International is a good film that could have been great. If you’re a Clive Owen fan, it’s certainly worth checking out.

• The Taking of Pelham 123 Review
• Sin City 2: Prequel, Midquel AND Sequel???
• Public Enemies Review
• ‘A Christmas Carol’ Review
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review
• Blood: The Last Vampire Review

Short version: This fresh take on the original Friday the 13th actually works.

Screen Rant reviews Friday the 13th

This review of Friday the 13th is for people who are fans of the 1980s style of slasher horror movies.

If you are not into movies whose sole purpose is to display gore, a variety of ways to kill people (who you probably wouldn’t mind seeing come to a grisly end), sex and nudity via thinly developed characters, then move along folks – nothing to see here.

If however you’re looking for an R-rated horror thrill on the big screen, read on.

Now it’s a well established fact here on Screen Rant that for the most part I am not a fan of movie remakes. Most of them are made simply to cash in on a well known film and they’re usually poorly done and bring nothing new to the story put forth in the original. While I did see the the Dawn of the Dead remake which came out in 2004, I haven’t seen Rob Zombie’s version of Halloween, nor director Marcus Nispel’s version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Neither of those was very well received.

The latter is relevant because Nispel also directed this update of Friday the 13th, and I have to say I think he did a decent job of rebooting the world of Jason Voorhees. The original film was released in 1980 and cost a whopping $700,000 to produce (about $1.8MM in today’s dollars). This new version cost about 10X that much, but frankly, you don’t really see that on the screen. Then again I guess anything under $20 million is considered low budget these days.

Anyway, enough history… what about THIS one?

I have a feeling even among slasher film fans, there will be a split on this one – personally I thought the director did a great job of refreshing the story/franchise for 2009.

The film opens right off the bat with a connection to the original – before the familiar Paramount Studios mountain is off the screen we here the trademark “ch-ch-ch, ah-ah-ah” from the older films. From there we are thrust right into a girl being chased through the woods on a stormy night (summer, 1980), shown in black and white. As it turns out we’re looking at the final moments in the original film, where the lone surviving girl from the film faces off against Jason’s mother.

From there we cut to present day with a bunch of young twenty-somethings out in the woods backpacking – it soon becomes known that the reason they’re out in the middle of nowhere is to look for a marijuana garden out in the middle of the woods. A couple of them fancy themselves entrepreneurs and are thinking about all the cash they’ll make off selling the pot.

We have your standard cliche cross-section of characters: The “good” couple, the geek, the hot babe, and the jerk. Within about 10 minutes of the film starting you’ll have already heard about 7 f-bombs and seen one pair of obviously synthetic breasts. Oh yes, this is indeed rated R, and we haven’t even gotten to the gore.

They’re camped out right outside Camp Crystal Lake and “geek boy” tells the story of Jason and how his mother killed a bunch of camp counselors almost 30 years ago. He goes off to relieve himself and finds the pot garden, while the “good” couple (the girl is concerned about her sick mom and feels bad for having left for the weekend) wander into Camp Crystal Lake proper and end up exploring an old run down house. I don’t have to tell you who lives in it. Meanwhile hot babe and jerk boy end up having sex in a tent.

Now that everyone is sufficiently separated, Jason appears to kill them all one at a time, each in a different and gruesome way. This all happens within about the first 20 minutes of the film, so you’re immediately thrust into the action and ramped up to 60mph. I was wondering how they could kill off all the characters so quickly, just when the opening title FRIDAY THE 13TH appears on the screen, and the audience cheered. My thought was basically “oh man, you mean this is only really getting started now?”

So fast forward another six weeks and we meet another group of primarily obnoxious young folks. We have the rich guy who thinks he’s king of the world, the sweet girl who for some reason is his girlfriend, a black fellow who loves to jokingly pull the race card on his buddies to yank their chains, a brawny guy and his babe girlfriend, and an Asian guy (a pretty funny Aaron Yoo) who is the comedian of the bunch.

Rich guy and girlfriend run into Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki), the brother of one of the girls we saw in the previous scenes – he’s distributing flyers stating she’s missing and he is determined to find her. The party crew goes off to rich boy’s daddy’s expensive cabin in the woods while Clay goes around town on his beater motorcycle looking for anyone who’s seen his sister.

Eventually Clay and rich guy’s girlfriend come across Jason’s (Derek Mears) cabin and see him bringing home a dead body. Soon thereafter, one by one the party gang are picked off by Jason until we’re down to only a couple of survivors.

Now for “purists,” you need to understand that even though this has been called a remake of Friday the 13th, it’s more accurately a remake of Friday the 13th Part 2, as it picks up right at the end of the first film. For the film to have Jason as the antagonist, there was really no other way to do it. Now as to the variety of “kills,” I’ve heard complaints that they weren’t “creative” enough, but geez… Jason dispatches his victims in this film using a machete, bow & arrow, fireplace poker, antlers, screwdriver, bear trap, fire and even an impalement for good measure.

I liked that they brought Jason back to the basics – gone is the quasi-supernatural aspect of the character. Here he’s just a huge dude who likes to kill people (up until the very end where they bend that way a bit). They don’t run for five minutes and then he suddenly appears ahead of them and that sort of thing. I found him to be very physically imposing and brutal. The film had lots of nods to the first two or three films, right down to the ending which was a definite hat tip.

I even felt a bit of suspense and dread during the movie, which didn’t resort to an endless number of “jump scares” that are so common in PG-13 horror movies. Oh sure, it had a few but it didn’t depend on that as its primary scare tactic.

So what’s not so great? There’s no real getting to know the characters here – they’re all pretty much cardboard cut outs set up like bowling pins just so they can get killed. There was one scene that just really didn’t fit and was obviously inserted into the film just to show you how Jason ends up with a hockey mask (he starts out with a burlap bag on his head). Also, after the adrenaline-pumping opening 20 minutes, the rest of the film just wasn’t able to quite measure up and it suffered for it.

Overall though I thought it was a fresh take on the 1980s slasher genre that accomplishes what it sets out to do: Scare the heck out of you.

But for God’s sake – LEAVE THE KIDS AT HOME for this one.

• Friday The 13th ‘Follow Up’ On The Way
• ‘The Little Shop Of Horrors’ Remake On The Way
• Halloween 2: Does Zombie Think He’s Better Than Carpenter?
• Amazing Teaser Trailer For [REC] 2
• Jason Statham Updating Charles Bronson Hitman Role
• Extract Review

Short Version: While Valkyrie offers a few thrills, the rest is just OK.

Screen Rant reviews Valkyrie

Valkyrie is director Bryan Singer’s WWII true-life ensemble film about a cabal of Nazi officers who conspired  to kill Adolf Hitler during the later days of the war. Overshadowing all of that is, of course, Tom Cruise, who stars as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, the German officer who hatches the plan to overthrow Hitler, codenamed Valkyrie.

So let’s identify some of the obvious issues this movie faces:

A) Anyone who’s had third grade history knows that the plot against Hitler ultimately fails. Drawing tension out of  a story whose end is already known is a tricky feat.

B) The language issue. It’s a coin toss for which would’ve been more painful: hearing Tom Cruise and Co. trying to speak German, or hearing Tom and Co. speaking English inflected with German accents.

C) TOM CRUISE. These days you’re either able to watch him act, or you’re not.

Now let’s address each issue, one at a time:

Issue A) To its credit, Valkyrie manages to keep things taut and tense most of the time. In the back of your mind you know that operation Valkyrie is going to fail, and that Tom Cruise won’t be flying off “into the danger zone” when it’s all over. However, the film has an extensive ensemble of accomplished actors (Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terrence Stamp and Eddie Izzard, to name a few), who play their roles as Nazi officers with enough shifty anxiety and slight menace that you’re never really certain who is going screw who over, when, why, or how. It’s just enough uncertainty and anxiety to snag your attention and keep it. Only problem is, the moment you know for sure how operation Valkyrie goes wrong, the film has no thrills left to offer, with still a half hour left to kill.

Still, the assassination day sequence when the conspirators try to take Hitler out is pretty awesome and had me on the edge of my seat. Bryan Singer at his best.

Issue B) The language thing is bad, I’m not going to lie to you. As I said, having the actors speaking German would’ve been just as terrible as hearing them speak English with fake German accents. I’m sure Bryan Singer realized that very early on, as indicated by the opening minutes of the film, in which Tom Cruise delivers a voice-over in German, which then “morphs” into English.

My  gripe is that Bryan Singer chose to disregard the language issue instead of finding a creative solution for it. Understand: when you are dealing with an ensemble of this size, made up of actors who are British and American and everything in between, you end up with a variety of accents being spoken, none of which sounds even remotely German! To say it’s distracting would be an understatement. A vocal coach might’ve worked with the actors to help them understand German phrasing patterns, speech cadences, or SOMETHING that would’ve helped them all sound like they were from at least the same country! But no such luck. You’ll either be able to put it out of your mind as you watch, or you won’t. I got over it.

Issue C) TOM CRUISE. He holds his own in the film and never gets swallowed up by the other heavyweight actors in the ensemble. His character is a stone-faced Nazi hiding a cauldron of anger and contempt behind his steely eyes, which I’ll admit is not that far of a departure from Cruise’s real-life role as a stone-faced celebrity, hiding a cauldron of anger and contempt behind his steely eyes. In the end it’s really a question of whehter or not you can look at Tom Cruise on screen without seeing the man instead of the character. Many people would likely agree that Tom should resign himself to the type of freaky antics he displayed in Tropic Thunder. Better for his career, better for the moviegoing public, I suspect.

All in all, don’t cry if you don’t catch Valkyrie in theaters. There’s always DVD.

• Eli Roth Is A Basterd In Tarantino’s ‘Masterpiece’
• Why You Shouldn’t Avoid Subtitled Movies
• Bryan Singer Interested In Returning To X-Men
• Will Bryan Singer Direct X-Men 4?
• Disney’s Russian Fantasy Film ‘Kniga Masterov’ Looks Impressive
• Bryan Singer Directing ‘Jack The Giant Killer’ (Not Caruso?)