Review - Terminator: Salvation

Studio/Production Company: Warner Brothers
Director: McG
Release Date: May 21, 2009 (theatrical)
Genre: Action
Strong Points: Masterful visual style; the post-apocalyptic world we’ve been waiting to see for years is fully realized; strong performances by both Christian Bale and Sam Worthington; some impressive camera work.
Weak Points: Good characters, script, and plot have been tossed out the window and replaced with a constant bombardment of action.
Technical Score: B
Artistic Score: B
Final Score (not an average): C
Moral Warnings: The action is intense and frequent; some minor curse words throughout including one use of “son of a *****”.

Buckle up, kiddies. Terminator is back. Under the direction of McG (the visionary director of "Charlie’s Angels" and that one football movie everyone has already forgotten about), the post-apocalyptic world and the war with the machines is finally revealed 25 years after the first "Terminator" film. And it’s war all right, as probably 112 of its 115 minutes are filled with explosions and gunfire and terminators and people screaming. You know. The things that sell tickets.

Salvation takes place in 2003 in the post-apocalyptic...no, wait. That’s later. The opening scene is of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a man on death row in 2003. We don’t know what he did, but he feels pretty bad about it and we get the Oh-the-terrible-things-that-I’ve-done-and-do-you-believe-in-second-chances-blah-blah-blah moment. If my heart was supposed to go out to him for that, it didn’t. After discussing his inner turmoil/angst to a doctor (Helena Bonham Carter), he signs his body away to Cyberdyne for some unknown project (I wonder what on earth THAT could be) and is executed.

Okay. NOW we’re in 2018. For the uncultured, there’s a cute "Star Wars"-ey opening crawl that gives a quick recap on exactly what the heck is going on in 2018, though really it’s pretty easy to figure out if you just watch the screen and don’t fall asleep, which should be no problem considering how many explosions and gun fights and lions and tigers and Terminators-oh-my show up.

Basically, it all boils down to man vs. machine, and this is something that the previous "Terminator" films have all been able to pull off quite successfully. However, since Salvation takes place in the post-apocalyptic world we’ve only seen brief glimpses of in the previous films, it’s man vs. machine on a remarkably larger scale.

For those who have spent significant time dreaming about what this machine-controlled 2018 would look like (because you’re weird like that), I say unto you: dream no longer. Because it’s here, and it’s beautiful. And by beautiful, I mean desolate, despairing, disturbing, and many other negative adjectives that start with the letter “D.” If there’s any place that McG and his team have succeeded in full, the creation of this world is it. It’s barren, empty, and makes you believe that Judgment Day really happened. Think "Children of Men" with Terminators as the bad guys instead of people (coincidentally, "Children of Men" was one of McG’s main influences for the setting).

Add that with some truly impressive cinematography by Shane Hurlbut. Shaky hand held camera work and one-shot takes are all over the place, and it’s gorgeous. They’ve set this world up and captured it perfectly. Mr. Hurlbut, I echo the words of Mr. Bale when he said: “Oh, good for you.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t enough to save "Salvation" (see what I did there?). It’s not a mess, no. Not at all. But its flaws are too significant for it to be the fourth "Terminator" film that we all wanted it to be. The characters are one-dimensional and underdeveloped, particularly John Connor (Christian Bale). My guess is the writers figured they could rely on his development in the previous two films and throw him in as-is, leaving more room for explosions and helicopter crashes.

Okay. I’ll admit it. The helicopter sequence was awesome.

Though, really, the show doesn’t go to Connor. It belongs to Marcus, the Terminator who thinks he’s human. Sam Worthington actually made me like his character, but even then there wasn’t any big feeling of attachment like the one I got out of "Terminator 2" (poor Arnold).

What replaces this character development? Action. Very well done, heart-pounding, visually striking action. But still action, and my mind begins to wander at the possibilities of how much better Salvation could be if just fifteen minutes of Terminators were taken out and well-constructed dialogue put in. Maybe we’ll find out when the sequel is made. Time will tell.

"Salvation" isn’t a light PG-13. It’s a dark film, wrought with intense fire-fights, frequent explosions, helicopter chases, and just overall plenty of violence to go around. Language was surprisingly sparse, though it is there. In one scene, a group of men intend to rape a woman, but they are stopped before they can do anything.

"Terminator: Salvation" has its flaws, and it certainly could have started the “beginning of the end” on a better note. But there’s a lot that’s done right here, and that gives me a good deal of hope for whatever the next step is for this series.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)


Second Spin by Drew Regensburger

As I read Zak's review, it seemed apparent that I had either had different expectations for the newest "Terminator" film, or that I had watched a different film. I don't know. But after the mess that was "Terminator 3," I wasn't expecting much. What I got was a movie that was both fun and visceral, a movie that didn't betray the previous films in the franchise but embraced them. John Connor, while not the sole main character of the film, really comes into his own here, echoing the slow transformation we began to see in "Terminator 2." Anton Yelchin is in top form as Connor's teenage father Kyle Reese, going so far as to emulate speech patterns that Michael Biehn had in the first two "Terminator" films.

And the visual style is impressive, as mentioned above. But when it comes to the character development already present, I have to disagree. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect viewers to be familiar with previous material in a series; after all, "The Empire Strikes Back" assumed familiarity and didn't rely on exposition in film to establish previously established characters. That means that in the fourth film in a series, focusing more on developing new characters makes more sense than expanding upon a character that has been built up over the course of three films and over twenty-five years.

All of that said however, "Terminator: Salvation" is--barring some clunky and corny dialogue--a treat to watch. It's a lesser "Terminator" film, but then, it's hard to surpass the first two films in the series, simply because of their status as sci-fi/action classics. Still, it towers over the diminutive and unimpressive "Terminator 3," and sets up the continuation of the series, leaving me (much like Zak) hoping that the next film in the franchise will be that much more impressive.
Read full article

Review - X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Studio/Production Company: 20th Century Fox/Marvel Studios/Seed Productions/Dune Entertainment
Director: Gavin Hood
Written by: David Benioff, Skip Woods
Rating: PG-13 for or intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity.
Release Date: May 1, 2009
Genre: Action
Strong Points: Strong performances from principal actors; well-done special effects; excellent opening sequence
Weak Points: Poor representation of every character; bad script; corny dialogue; weirdly jumps between bloody and bloodless; bad effects for Wolverine’s claws
Technical Score: C+
Artistic Score: D
Final Score (not an average): D
Moral Warnings: Violence runs throughout the film; an intense sequence in Vietnam and in World War II early in the movie; some profanity scattered through the film, including s*** and a**h***; blood is present in the movie, but not an extreme amount; some sensuality is implied; some characters are ruthlessly murdered; Wolverine is seen naked from a distance at one point

The “X-Men” film series, much like the “Spider-Man” series, has had its share of ups and downs. The first two films in both series, arguably, were the best, followed by weaker third installments. In the case of the final “X-Men” movie, it wasn’t bogged down by silliness, but it wasn’t as moody or character driven, either. That was the main problem with that movie, and the reason why some felt so disappointed with it.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” doesn’t suffer from that problem, but adds many of its own to the list. Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is just as angsty and angry as ever, but gone is the mysteriousness and complexity from previous films. In its place is exposition, and here, it’s just not that good. The script is full of bad, almost laughable dialogue. Characters that were intriguing and captivating in previous films are now almost parodies of themselves, which is really a shame when so many skilled actors are part of the film, turning in strong performances. Sadly, strong performances without good dialogue don’t add up to much.

Disappointingly, here is where the screenwriters decided to add in fan favorite characters beyond the more famous X-Men. Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) is the worst casualty of the bunch. Here is a sarcastic, funny character perfectly suited to the actor, and the writers used none of the actual Deadpool source material. Looking at the film without understanding the source material, one finds that the filmmakers underutilized Reynold’s, throwing him out ten minutes into the film and otherwise sabotaging the character itself. Gambit (Taylor Kitsch) is another such casualty, though not to the degree that Deadpool is. As one of the most anticipated Marvel characters to make the transition from panel to screen, one would think that the filmmakers would take more care in presenting the character. This largely is not the fault of the writing, because Gambit is nearly spot-on, ignoring some aspects of his past that the characters elaborate on. Instead, the problem is with the actor who plays the character, a person who bizarrely seems to have hardly any presence on screen, despite his character’s otherwise flashy powers.

Ignoring the lack of faithfulness to the source material, the film is still mediocre at best. The plot feels like an amalgamation of a number of disparate plot threads, muddied by ham-fisted and comically bad dialogue. Special effects are used everywhere, which isn’t normally a bad thing, but it is when they’re of this quality. Somehow, the claw effects that looked so convincing on Wolverine in the past three films now look fake and cartoony. A number of exciting chase sequences end in bad CGI followed by a bad one-liner.

There are a number of very cool things in “Wolverine” that are unfortunately stuck in the mire that is this movie. Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber) and Wolverine’s relationship is well done, mostly because of the chemistry that the actors have between them. Several fight sequences are intense, including one where Wolverine destroys a helicopter. These sequences, however, are few and far between compared to the things that don’t work, and those are what end up killing the movie.

Speaking of fight sequences, most of them are relatively bloodless. Compared to the first three “X-Men” movies, “Wolverine” hardly has bloodshed, though there is some on dead bodies and in a few key close ups. The profanity in the movie is about average for a PG-13 film, and includes s*** and a**h***. Wolverine himself is seen naked from behind at one point, and only from a distance. There’s also some mild sensuality involving Wolverine early in the film.

For what it’s worth, the cinematography is well done, as is the sound design. And, as was said before, there are a number of surprisingly good performances by the leads, despite the bad script. None of that is enough to save “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” however, which begs the question: Are further installments in this series necessary, or even worth it? After seeing this mess, it’s hard to be enthusiastic.

-Drew Regensburger (drew@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Watchmen

Studio/Production Company: Warner Brothers/Paramount Pictures
Director: Zack Snyder
Written by: David Hayter and Alex Tse (graphic novel by Alan Moore)
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, sexuality and nudity.
Release Date: March 6, 2009 (theatrical)
Genre: Action/Drama
Strong Points: Awesome visuals are met with smart direction by Zack Snyder, and strong performances by the actors; it’s a story with so many themes and messages that it requires several viewings to absorb everything and much thought to properly understood
Weak Points: Suffers from occasional narrative lull
Technical Score: A
Artistic Score: A
Final Score (not an average): A-
Moral Warnings: The violence is gritty, dark and graphic. It is used only when necessary to carry the plot forward, but when it appears, it is gruesome and occasionally disturbing (for example, one scene shows in detail a man’s arms being cut off with a chain saw while he is still alive, then dying from blood loss/trauma); language is frequent, with the F-word popping up 20 times or so; there is an extended sex scene where bare breasts and buttocks are shown; one of the characters is often naked (he glows with blue energy, which takes away some of the realism, but his genitals are not often covered)


For those who don’t know, this movie is based off of the graphic novel of the same name. It totaled 12 issues, which were released between September of 1986 and October of 1987 and then went on to become basically what the movie trailer called it - the most celebrated graphic novel of all time. Watchmen introduced the world to an alternative 1985 America - one where masked avengers were not confined to comic books, but were a part of history.

The movie is the closest thing to a panel-by-panel adaptation that one can get. The problem with this is that, while it will almost certainly please the fans, it runs the risk of confusing the wider audience that haven’t read it. Critics have been quite split on this issue, and I guess I’m one of those that took Watchmen for brilliance. I had no trouble at all following the plot nor understanding the characters (though the film certainly rewards study after the initial viewing).

As previously mentioned, Watchmen takes place in an alternative 1985 America (mostly New York). This America is darker, grittier, and at the same time recognizable. Unlike most superhero films, Watchmen doesn’t require much of an active suspension of disbelief, as its alternate reality really isn’t all that hard to accept as a possibility. It’s an America that could have been and still could be. That alone is a chilling thought.

What brought this nation to such a despairing state? A collection of things, no doubt, but ultimately it’s fear. An energy crisis has caused the Cold War to escalate to dangerous levels, and its effect on the American citizenry is disgusting. Rampant crime, riots, and prostitution are the norm. At one point, costumed heroes would have been expected to help quell these problems, but “masks” have recently been outlawed, due mostly to the public’s violent demand for it and the government’s desire to keep the peace. And now, amidst all this chaos and fear, someone is one by one assassinating the retired vigilantes that once referred to themselves as Watchmen.

I won’t give away any more of the story, as it really is a delight to watch unfold, though it’s not without its issues. The plot briefly suffers from the two words no director or screenwriter wants associated with his film - narrative lull. But this was mostly because of backstory on the characters, and while it did temporarily disrupt the natural flow that carried the rest of the plot, the backstory is well done and was interesting enough to hold my attention. Probably because I don’t get bored when people aren’t slamming knives through other people’s elbows and cutting off arms with chain saws.

Or maybe that’s just me.

Even so, there is plenty of action/gore to go around for the action/gore buffs, and the rest of us will be impressed anyway. Watchmen is directed by Zack Snyder, who caused quite the stir with his 2007 blockbuster hit 300. 300 featured some of the most incredible action visuals ever seen in cinema, as well as some of the lamest dialogue and most uninspired of plots. Granted, it wasn’t mean to be anything more thant an action flick, but it nonetheless remains a film of very, very little substance.

Watchmen combines those impressive visuals with everything that 300 lacked - a great script, great characters, great acting, a fantastic plot, themes, a message, and, of course, substance. So while action is nowhere near the core of the film, when it shows up, it’s a thing of beauty. They’re the kind of action/fight scenes that you look up randomly on YouTube just to again experience the greatness (and I will openly admit to having already done this). But the beauty is not just in the action. The whole visual style of the film is based around Dave Gibbon’s art work on the graphic novel, which means that the movie is pretty much cinematic eye candy from start to finish.

Yet as good and impressive of a film as Watchmen is, I couldn’t go around suggesting it to everyone I know. It’s a dark, sinister, mature movie - the kind that doesn’t hold punches, and lets the punches land hard. Humanity is depicted through the blackest of lenses, touching even on rape and the murdering of children. When violence occurs, it is often graphic and can be disturbing, depending on the viewer. Language is certainly present, and there is an extended sex scene with nudity (breasts and buttocks are shown). This all reflects the degenerate world that Watchmen takes place in, but it is a world that some will likely not feel comfortable entering.

In the end, Watchmen is a haunting piece of cinema. Its faithfulness to the graphic novel will please fans, and those that haven’t read it will find a film that deserves and rewards study and discussion. Not everyone will be able to appreciate its depth, which is unfortunate, as in the depth there is much to appreciate.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Quantum of Solace

Studio/Production Company: EON Productions/MGM/Columbia Pictures
Director: Marc Forster
Written by: Michael G. Wilson, Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content.
Release Date: November 14, 2008 (Theatrical), March 24, 2009 (DVD)
Genre: Action-Adventure
Strong Points: Consistently stylish, gripping direction; Daniel Craig continues to impress as Bond; the rest of the cast tends to shine; visually striking cinematography
Weak Points: Olga Kurylenko is no replacement for Casino Royale’s very human and very strong Eva Green; story is more enjoyable the second time through, but initially comes off as very weak, especially when compared to Casino Royale.
Technical Score: B
Artistic Score: B-
Final Score (not an average): B+
Moral Warnings: Plenty of violence, combined with revenge motivated killings throughout the film; one scene of mild sensuality; a scene of rear nudity; one or two mild profanities

Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: Quantum of Solace is not Casino Royale, nor does it try to be. It's a weaker but visually stunning follow-up. As the first proper sequel in the James Bond franchise, it may not initially seem to have the impact of its predecessor, but it is strong and absolutely worthy on its own merits. It is far more violent and less focused on story and character development than Casino Royale was, but it makes no pretense in that direction anyway.

Quantum of Solace—quite possibly the strangest title in the Bond franchise (it means “the least amount of comfort”)—is, at its core, a revenge story. James Bond (Daniel Craig), left cold and calloused by the seeming betrayal and ultimate death of Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, has nothing left to lose; he cares nothing for his life or for MI6 protocol, resorting to doing anything necessary to get the job done. The film picks up around an hour after Casino Royale ended. Bond is speeding away from a number of attackers, a man (Mr. White, played by Jesper Christensen) in the trunk of his car. The visual style of Solace is made apparent through this opening sequence, with both stylish camera angles and pretty unique camera cuts punctuating the action. Shots of a car flying off a cliff are interrupted, only resumed a moment later as Bond encounters the car falling in front of him. The whole scene reeks of the director Forster striving for a stylish action film, shot with plenty of panache, and mostly succeeding.

Unfortunately, this also means that it initially feels as though the movie is mostly fluff with very little substance to bring to the table. The new main characters aren’t as interesting as any of the central characters from Casino Royale, but the recurring characters continue to impress in roles both small and large. Of particular disappointment is Olga Kurylenko’s character, Camille Montes; she seems devoid of depth, remaining one dimensional for over half the film until some exposition is given. But at that point, it’s almost too little, too late. Any vestige of interest I had in her character disappeared, and attempts by the screenwriters and Forster to establish a meaningful relationship between Bond and Camille fall flat.

That said, their relationship isn’t the focus of the movie. Instead the film becomes one about how Bond’s internal turmoil affects his work and life, showing his evolution into the character that we’ve all become so familiar with over the past forty years. Violence is featured more throughout the movie as a matter of course with the typical Bond film sexuality taking a back seat because, as M (Judi Dench) says at one point in the movie, Bond is "blinded by inconsolable rage;" he’s interested more in making someone pay than wooing and seducing women.

Ultimately, Forster proves a capable director, albeit a lesser one than Casino Royale’s Martin Campbell, who brings interesting and different things to the table while continuing the plot and serious direction of 2006’s critically acclaimed Bond reboot.

By this point, you’ve probably noticed that I haven’t said all that much about the plot of the movie itself. That’s because it’s not exactly the most remarkable plot in the world, dealing with bioterrorism and political coups, nor is it the main point of the film itself. Here, the end justifies the means. Everything that happens to and around Bond is a way of justifying how and why Bond gets his revenge and finds his answers. This isn’t a movie about a crazy villain out to take over the world, though there is one, nor is it a movie about saving the world, though Bond does that as well. Instead, Solace finds its story in Bond saving himself from the self-destructive path that Casino Royale leaves him on, and this is ultimately the most important thing to know about the movie itself.

The DVD edition of Quantum of Solace contains several special features alongside a copy of the near-atrocious Jack White/Alicia Keys collaboration “Another Way to Die,” the theme song of this Bond film. The transfer on the DVD itself is quite good, with acceptable black levels and hardly any artifacts occurring. Sound quality is also very good with no visible lag or other problems with the audio itself.

Quantum of Solace features some minor sexuality, a scene with some nudity in it and quite a bit of violence and killing. The fight sequences are much more intense here, owing some to the Bourne movies, but not as much as many have said. Language is not a problem, though there may be one or two cases of blasphemy during the proceedings.

Quantum of Solace is not better than Casino Royale, which has widely been acknowledge as the best Bond film in recent years. However, it is still one of the stronger films of the series and an admirable movie in its own right. Its impact is not immediate but rewards the viewer with multiple viewings. Certainly there are flaws here and the theme music isn’t as stunning as it could have been, but this remains a significant and beautiful addition to the Bond legacy.

-Drew Regensburger (drew@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Bangkok Dangerous

Studio/Production Company: Saturn Films, Lionsgate Films
Director: The Pang Brothers
Written by: The Pang Brothers, Jason Richman
Rating: R for violence, language and some sexuality
Release Date: September 5, 2008
Genre: Action
Strong Points: Frequently striking cinematography, interesting action sequences, Nic Cage doesn’t freak out during the movie
Weak Points: A whopping two awkwardly placed and performed romances, false and arbitrary morality used to make the story work
Technical Score: B-
Artistic Score: C
Final Score (not an average): C
Moral Warnings: Several sequences at what appears to be a strip club (though no nudity is present); a topless woman lounges by a pool in another sequence; a sex scene is seen in passing; when the film erupts into violence, it does so with quite a bit of gore, including at least two dismemberment

I’ve not been a fan of straight-up action movies for a long time. They don’t tend to have a point, and I can’t stop myself from analyzing them to death. Basically, I can’t sit back and have fun with the movie itself, taking it for what it is. So I’ve become excessively picky in what I see.

Bangkok Dangerous is a bit different in this regard. I recognized the nods to Hong Kong action flicks in the trailers for this movie, but remained cautious, and with good reason. Star Nicolas Cage is fairly hit and miss in my experience. He can be absolutely amazing. Amazing, that is, until he freaks out and destroys any acting cred that he has. This is really unfortunate, because he’s demonstrated that he’s quite capable after turns in Wild at Heart, Moonstruck, Leaving Las Vegas and 8mm.

Bangkok Dangerous, for what it’s worth, doesn’t feature Cage freaking out. It does show him as a composed, lonely hitman, named Joe, who suddenly meets a girl and starts acting like a bashful high school kid on his first date. That was my first major problem with the movie. How does a man who kills people for a living end up stuttering and speechless in front of a mildly attractive woman? This is a man who is paid for his precise, confident work. It just doesn’t add up, and that really follows the film throughout this unfortunate romantic subplot.

Joe comes to Bangkok to complete four jobs. He spends much of his time in the city wandering the streets (to remember that he’s a part of the human race, he says) or in his town house (to hide in the shadows). As mentioned above, Joe pursues a relationship with Fon (Charlie Yeung), a deaf-mute pharmacist. It should be noted that at no time is this woman’s name actually mentioned on screen. If it is, I missed it. As with most of their communication, Fon tells Joe her name through poor pantomime and half-implemented sign language, which doesn’t exactly look convincing, and lends no credence to the idea of this couple’s burgeoning relationship.

Added to the mix is Kong (Chakrit Yamnam), a street con man who ends up acting as Joe’s errand boy. Kong is given strict rules (“You show up one minute late, you don’t get paid”) and sent off on his motorbike to shuttle briefcases between Joe’s hideout and a local strip club, where he meets Aom (Panward Hemmanee), a dancer who he immediately takes a completely unprofessional interest in, so to speak. This relationship is pursued in what seems to be fifteen minute spurts, largely without verbal communication of any sort, and starts escalating when Kong gives Aom earrings. It works, because he knows her so well and she’s accustomed to accepting gifts from strangers, like any beautiful woman is, obviously.

These thin threads of plot set up for some spectacular (in concept) set pieces that attempt to drive the story along as best they can. Their unfortunate deficiencies, as well as the wooden acting from much of the supporting cast, don’t help matters much.

Watching Cage set up each of the jobs that he’s paid to do feels a bit of a chore, and Kong being there to provide a false moral compass (one that feels like an awkward attempt at deus ex machina when none should be there) doesn’t help matters, especially when it’s been done twice before in recent history, and much better in both of those movies.

Take last fall’s Hitman, starring Timothy Olyphant as the amoral lead from the video games. While that movie wasn’t great, it did what it set out to do, and established a relationship between the titular character and a superimposed moral compass character in Nika. But it felt natural, with a sexual tension evolving between the two characters as they grew closer and encountered more danger.

And again, in this year’s Wanted, we see a conflicted character with a moral compass thrust upon him in the latter half of the movie. While that instance felt far less natural, it seemed far more plausible than what you see in Bangkok Dangerous. Cage’s Joe sees something in both Kong and his love interest, but I can’t tell what it is; the film takes place over the period of a month (as said by Cage in the beginning of the movie), which is certainly not enough time to either fall in love with a woman you can hardly speak to, or train a pupil who was initially planned to be killed.

No, it’s not enough time for either of those things, but for all my panning of the story, it really seems superfluous. This is not a movie about story or messages or morals, no matter how hard it tries to be. Cage’s dual sacrifices ultimately fall flat in a mire of politics and love, two things that can be successfully intertwined, but that the filmmakers cannot seem to handle. Ultimately, this is a movie about stylistic action sequences.

If that’s all that there was to movies like this, then The Matrix Revolutions would have done far better than it did. But it’s not. So it seems that ultimately, Bangkok Dangerous falls back onto its action sequences, all of which have some moderately memorable moments, but none of which are big enough, cool enough, or feature enough explosions to make them worth the price of admission.

On a purely technical level, Bangkok Dangerous often attempts to dazzle and often falls short. The cinematography is generally impressive, but pales in comparison to recent assassin films such as In Bruges and Wanted, which took the concept of an assassin to higher, better and alternately less and more violent levels. Still, it’s a solid looking picture that isn’t visually boring, but isn’t exactly visually arresting, either.

Bangkok Dangerous is, by its very nature, a violent film. Its story revolves around a man sent to kill four different people; each of these sequences is framed by a high action sequence that doesn’t skimp on the gore. Included in the film are at least two dismemberments, one via blade, the other from a grenade. Sexuality does figure into the movie, yet isn’t explicit. Several scenes take place in a strip club, but there’s no nudity, only skimpy costumes. There’s a sex scene glimpsed in passing, as well as a shot of a nude breast. Profanity is heard throughout the film, further securing its R-rating.

Bangkok Dangerous is a film that is not going to be enjoyed by the majority of serious film lovers. There’s too much fluff and not enough actual content here to satisfy anyone who really loves serious film. However, for those that enjoy fast paced, thrill-a-minute movies such as Crank, The Transporter and Shoot ‘Em Up, you can’t really go wrong with this movie. No, it doesn’t have charismatic leading men like Jason Statham or Clive Owen, and it’s not as fun as Death Race or Shoot ‘Em Up. It is, however, a solid action flick that’s pretty fun to watch, even if it borders on tedious at numerous points during its run time.

--Drew Regensburger (drew@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - 10,000 B.C. (2008)

Studio/Production Company: Warner Bros.
Director: Roland Emmerich
Written by: Hararld Kloser, Roland Emmerich
Rating: PG-13 for for sequences of intense action and violence.
Release Date: March 7, 2008 (theater), June 24, 4008 (DVD)
Genre: Action
Strong Points: Some fairly impressive visuals.
Weak Points: Plot is the very essence of simplicity, poorly written script, the special effects disappoint to a degree.
Technical Score: D
Artistic Score: C-
Final Score (not an average): D+
Moral Warnings: Violence throughout the film, some of which would be intense to younger viewers.


10,000 B.C. may possess the basic elements of a "fight-for-freedom" story, but its ultimate purpose is clearly to entertain, not to inspire. The problem is that the entertainment level is not high enough to carry the weight of the entire film on its shoulders. The cliches, rip-offs, and lackluster script all contribute to a very mediocre movie experience. If taken at face value, there is certainly some fun to be had, but only on rainy days when there’s really nothing better to watch.

The movie tells the story of a tribe struggling to survive at a time when their main supply of food is running desperately low. With the “white rain” (it’s called "snow," you morons) setting in and the lack of mammoth burgers glaring them in the face, the tribe must wait until the Last Great Hunt for the prophesied ‘Chosen-One-warrior’ to rise up and kill a mammoth. Hence bringing about the return of mammoth burgers. And quite possibly grandma’s home made mammoth stew.

The first twenty minutes of 10,000 B.C. feel unfocused, then half of the tribe gets kidnapped and the plot actually picks up. A select few, including the un-confident Chosen One, chase after their fellow tribesmen in an attempt to save them from their horse-riding captors. From there on out the story treads upon familiar waters to avoid sinking. Which was probably a good idea.

While the plot is decent enough, the script isn’t. The dialogue between characters feels forced. Often to the point where you start guessing how many days they put the thing together in. It’s like someone pitched them the story idea and asked them to have the script written out later that afternoon so they could start filming.

Not only is the dialogue poor, but the character development also happens to be be a far shot from mediocre. What you see is what you get. Let me save you the suspense and tell you that you’re not going to get much.

So... the script is pretty bad. “How about those special effects?!” you ask. I can honestly say that they’re better. Though... saying that isn’t saying a whole lot. Still. It’s better.

The tribesmen and their enemies have a few close encounters with some some strange creatures along the way, and the creatures all look very, very CGI. The subsequent monster-chases-human scenes are very reminiscent of the Jurassic Park films and Peter Jackson’s King Kong. Except without that darker, slightly horrific edge to them.

Despite the rip-off, the monster/creature scenes are somewhat fun. Thrilling? No. Entertaining? Yes. To a certain degree.

That’s not to say that the movie is compiled of constant action and CGI monsters. The special effects never dominate. To be honest, there was less of an emphasis on special effects than I thought there would be. 10,000 B.C. is actually somewhat balanced between plot and action. As mentioned, neither of these elements are stellar, but the balance between manages to keep the film afloat.

For a PG-13 film, 10,000 B.C. is pretty clean. There’s plenty of violence to go around, but it’s neither gruesome nor graphic. Some small amounts of blood are seen, but never in an excessive amount. There is one slightly awkward scene where a man intends to take advantage of a woman, but he is stopped before he can do anything. And considering that it takes place... you know... so long ago, there’s practically no bad language.

10,000 B.C. attempts to attract both the younger men and women with its violence for the guys and romance subplot for the girls, but with such a poor script and uninspired acting it’s really no more than a cheap thrill. A mildly entertaining but ultimately empty movie experience.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review- Dark Knight (2008)

Studio/Production Company: Warner Bros.
Director: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Screenplay - Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan. Story - David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan.
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Release Date: July 18, 2008
Genre: Action/Drama
Strong Points: Transcends the superhero genre; makes Batman, Gotham, and the villains more realistic than ever before; fantastic acting all across the board; script that rivals some of the greats.
Weak Points: There's an ending.
Technical Score: A
Artistic Score: A+
Final Score (not an average): A+
Moral Warnings: Very dark for a PG-13 film, some cruel violence (not descriptive), intense violence throughout, very mild language.

In 2005, a new series of Batman films were started with a movie called, appropriately, Batman Begins. The movie naturally explored how Batman came to be the superhero that is more familiar to the mainstream audience - the one that glides through the air dressed as a bat and beats the bad guys with his bare fists and his awesome gadgets. By the end of Batman Begins, an optimistic Bruce Wayne had started to find a happy balance between his personal life and his life as Batman; he had begun to capture the heart of the girl of his dreams; and he had that warm fuzzy feeling in his heart about saving Gotham, his beloved city.

That was Batman Begins. This is The Dark Knight.

Director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan (who wrote the script) made a significant change of focus from that film to this. Batman Begins casually introduced its audience to a new Batman and the character behind him. We saw his good side, his optimistic side, essentially, his lighter side. Knowing that we are now familiar with their version of the hero, the two brothers use The Dark Knight to explore the darker side of Batman. And not only of Batman, but also of the city he protects and the people who inhabit it.

The result is two very, very different films. If you go into Dark Knight expecting an experience like the one you had three years ago, you are in for an incredible shock. There are familiar faces in the cast and familiar names in the crew, but this is not the same type of film. The ‘superhero movie,’ in this case, is not to be equated with ‘popcorn-eating-soda-drinking-feet-on-the-seat-in-front-of-you-fun.’ Not at all. Dark Knight is about a superhero, yes. But the movie itself transcends the superhero genre.

Why? Because this movie feels real. Batman Begins had moments of this spread out here and there, but it definitely held back so that the audience could receive more along the lines of what it expected. There was a stereotypical villain, the traditional love interest/conflict, plenty of one-liners to go around, and a theme that dealt with the hero coming to terms with who he is and what he stands for.

Dark Knight pulls as far away as it can from these elements without completely shattering its intended audience. They are still vaguely present throughout the film, but that’s needed. People do not expect to come out of a film like this wanting to commit suicide. This is something the Nolan brothers thankfully realized. There are a few one-liners, a number of funny moments - all of which keep Dark Knight... well... not so much on an even keel, but certainly keep the ship from sinking completely in dark, thematic waters.

And while it may not sink completely, audiences can be assured that they will get much more than just their feet wet. Since we last left him, Bruce Wayne is still managing to balance his company and his acts of vigilantism as Batman. But as time moves on and his confrontation with the city’s newest villain, the Joker, becomes more and more inevitable, the darker side of him begins to be revealed. The Joker slowly and painfully wears him down, seeming to be always in control of the situation and always ready to test the hero’s convictions and his abilities. Not for his psychological interest in Batman, either. Just because it’s fun.

Ultimately, Wayne has to answer the question: How far do I have to go to stop men like him? Dark Knight demonstrates, oftentimes painfully, that being a good person and standing up for what is right is a hard path to follow. And in the most trying moments, Bruce contemplates giving up - as we all do at such times.

All is not dismal clouds and brooding contemplation, however. Butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) are always there during the hardest moments to act as Wayne’s conscience. Their warm smiles and gentle advice are there to refresh both Wayne and the audience before the film drops back down into the dramatic pit. Caine and Freeman mostly play on the sideline in Dark Knight, seemingly moreso than in Begins. But both their performances are top notch and their time on the screen is always enjoyable.

A solid chunk of the credit for the revealing of Wayne/Batman’s darker side must go to Christian Bale. To play the role of Bruce Wayne is essentially to play two different characters - the calm and charming billionaire as well as the scarily powerful Batman. For an actor to do it as well as Bale is a true achievement.

It also helps that the Bat-suit is even more intimidating than last time, in order to reflect the darker side of Wayne. Modifications are made early in the film with a little help from Lucius Fox that both help Wayne move faster as well as turn his head, which he apparently couldn’t do in the first film (it makes sense if you think about it). But what truly adds to his appearance are his eyes, which seem to almost be a part of the suit. The designers truly perfected their use of Bale’s intense stare behind the mask, giving him an almost haunting look.

The one to cause the confusion and chaos that brings out this side of Batman is the famed Joker. The Joker explodes onto the scene within the first few minutes of the film, revealing his criminal genius, his cruelty, and his bizarre psychological issues with one punch. No explanation is given for the way he is, no backstory is told by the film or the characters. The Joker simply is. And this introduction to him is pure gold for the setting.

Heath Ledger’s performance is nothing short of brilliant. He attacks the role, absorbs himself in it, becomes the character. However you want to phrase it, Ledger is truly the standout in an all-star cast. His mannerisms, the way he carries himself, his facial expressions, straight down to the way he licks his lips, no one has ever captured the essence of the Joker like Ledger has in Dark Knight. And frankly, it’s hard to believe that anyone will ever be able to top it.

Many parents are probably wondering if The Dark Knight is too dark for children. While it is possibly the darkest PG-13 film I’ve ever seen, the content is surprisingly mild. Given the cruelty of the Joker, Nolan easily could have used more details in hopes of disgusting the audience even more. But he didn’t have to, and he doesn’t. There are some cruel deaths, but not once are any details shown. No gore, no blood. More often than not, death is implied and the scene finishes before anything can happen.

There is no glorification of violence. When there is violence, its only purpose is to move the plot forward or to define more of a character. This is something that is not often seen in films, and I applaud the makers of the film for it.

The language is pretty much the same. There are a few uses of “Christ” and one use of “Son-of-a-b****”, but that’s as strong as it gets, aside from a few “h***”s and “da**”s scattered sparsely throughout. For sexual content there are two kisses and that's it.

I should warn that when the villain Two-Face comes into the picture, the CGI burns on his face are somewhat graphic and could scare younger viewers. It reminded me of the Pirates of the Caribbean skeletons, save for burnt flesh and muscle being a considerable amount of the face.

While dark in nature, Dark Knight boasts a powerful message of persevering for good when it’s the hardest thing to do. And with such outstanding performances in almost every area, it’s not just one of the best movies this year, but one of the best in years.

--Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)


===== Second Spin =====

While I disagree with some very basic parts of Zak’s review (one-liners in both new Batmans? What are you talking about?), I agree with his view, overall. Batman went from a joke in the late-90s (face it, the Joel Schumacher movies were pretty much awful) to something absolutely amazing come 2005. Chris Nolan’s Batman series is dark, brooding and toxic, and Dark Knight is no exception. If anything, it actually expands on its predecessor. It drips atmosphere. The acting is all-around phenomenal, with the trio of Bale, Ledger and Eckhart standing apart from the rest of the ensemble (which includes Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman).

That, in and of itself, is saying something. All of that is to say nothing of the story, the camera, the sound… all of it comes together in a brutal, oppressive, amazing whole that must be seen to be believed. Not only has Nolan lifted Batman out of the mire, but he has done so with an artful style that only comes from the best of directors. The Dark Knight has returned.

--Drew Regensburger (drew@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Wanted

Studio/Production Company: Universal Pictures
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Written by: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Chris Morgan
Rating: R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality
Release Date: June 27, 2008
Genre: Action
Strong Points: Stylish action; interesting concept; visually striking cinematography; everything is completely over the top
Weak Points: Movie lags a bit in the middle; writing and acting is sometimes a little lame
Technical Score: B-
Artistic Score: B+
Final Score (not an average): B+
Moral Warnings: High level of graphic violence throughout; some sexuality is shown, though not graphic; rear nudity in three situation; very strong profanity; lots of blood and gore.


In 2003, comic book writer Mark Millar started a series called Wanted, a strange take on the traditional “superhero” genre. In it, the superheroes were all dead: the super-villains, in this world, had banded together and killed off every last hero in the bunch. The world, then, saw the effects of this, and became a dark and foreboding place. In the series, a character named Wesley Gibson, a typical office worker who hates his life, discovers that his father—who was recently killed—was a world-class super-villain, and that Mr. Gibson has inherited his powers. And so he begins to move into the criminal underworld, joining an organization called the Fraternity, after being recruited by another villain named Fox, turning an ordinary life into anything but.

Throw that out for the movie.

Yes, Wanted stars a man named Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy), yes, it has the Fraternity, and yes, it has a woman named Fox (Angelina Jolie), but make no mistake; this is not a movie about super-villains. This is a movie about assassins, a movie that has a strong message (much like Fight Club and The Matrix) that revolves around office workers in dead-end jobs. This is a movie about becoming what you’re supposed to be, for those who care. For those who don’t, this is a movie about stylish gunplay and crazy action and stunts.

Director Timur Bekmambetov is a Russian director who gained international attention with his work on the Russian films Night Watch and Day Watch. The movies showcased an eye for spectacular shots and visuals on a lower budget than most Western directors are used to (both Watch movies were turned out on a budget of $4.2 million each). With a bigger budget, more able actors, and an excellent script, Bekmambetov turned out the most stylish, intense, and downright fun, movie since Zack Snyder’s 300.

So, yes, Wesley Gibson is a nobody, an under-appreciated office worker who is mistreated by his boss (she snaps a stapler near his ear to punctuate her points), his best friend (he’s sleeping with Wesley’s girlfriend), and his girlfriend (see previous). He’s depressed and can’t find a way out of—what he feels is—a hollow, pointless life. In comes Angelina Jolie as Fox, offering a way out by saving Wesley’s life, resulting in the first of several intense, visually enthralling, exhilarating car chases.

The movie doesn’t really let down from there, though it begins to drag on towards the middle during an extended training session. Yes, as in most action movies, Wanted is a slave to its own self indulgences, bathing in a sea of blood and violence, with at least two montages sprinkled for good measure. Short, effective montages, but montages just the same, which, by and large, are not really necessary in movies.

By and large, Wanted is punctuated by strong performances from both its leading and supporting casts. Both McAvoy and Jolie offer up excellent, convincing performances, and Morgan Freeman, playing Fraternity head Sloan, isn’t half bad, either. In fact, the only truly weak spot in the acting is that the script becomes kind of cheesy during some sequences, which is really too bad.

Wanted is certainly deserving of its hard R-rating. This is one of the more violent movies that I’ve ever seen (not more than Rambo, but that was just obscene), and its shoot-out sequences drive this point home. Buckets of blood aside, sexuality plays a role in the movie (in two scenes); those two sequences, plus a third, non-sexual sequence, feature rear nudity. Add into that a large amount of profanity, and Wanted is a movie that you wouldn’t bring the kids to, or yourself, if any of that proves a problem.

By and large, Wanted ends up being one of the better action movies that has come out in years, and one of the best--if not the best--popcorn movies this year. That it comes with a message (like Fight Club) that is a slam in the face to the majority of the populace isn’t the point. Even without that, Wanted is an excellent, fun ride for those that are old enough, or willing to sit through the gore and stylistic gunplay.

--Drew Regensburger (drew@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Hancock (2008)

Studio/Production Company: Columbia Pictures
Director: Peter Berg
Written By: Vince Gilligan, Vincent Ngo
Rating: PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language.
Release Date: July 2, 2008
Genre: Action/Drama
Strong Points: Goes outside the box of the superhero genre and does it flair and purpose, the message strikes with power and truth, there's a feeling and soul to it that most films of its genre lack.
Weak Points: Like an amazing roller coaster that comes to a close too soon, Hancock is over before you want it to be.
Technical Score: A
Artistic Score: B+
Final Score (not an average): A-
Moral Warnings: Constant swearing throughout including two F-words (one in Japanese with the subtitle using symbols to block out two of the letters), a middle finger salute, uses of "God," and one use of "Christ," and many uses of the word a** and its derivatives; superhero violence throughout including blood in some scenes; protagonist struggles with alcohol addiction.


His name is Hancock, and he is the only one of his kind. He can fly. He can lift cars with his bare hands. He is indestructible. His abilities point to every definition of the word superhero. And while he saves the citizens of L.A. every day, his methods point to every definition of a very different word (and one that is used many, many times throughout the duration of the film). The careless use of his extraordinary powers leaves the people of his city in strong discontent for his acts of heroism, but Hancock isn't exactly the type of person to care about what people think.

The result is a very troubled, very unlikable protagonist. It is also a very compelling, very fresh take on the superhero genre. Anyone expecting another Spiderman or Ironman film will be surprised. Hancock goes outside the genre of film it is associated with to provide for a completely different experience - one that takes the basic elements of the genre and makes everything new from the ground up.

Suffice it to say that Hancock is not a comedy that pokes fun at superhero films as the ad campaign has suggested. The first third of the movie is without doubt comedic, much like the trailers have shown. Our hero is an alcoholic who uses his powers with reckless abandonment. Every time he performs a heroic act, he brings with him so much damage that it almost would have been better had he not been there at all. And while you feel sympathy for the people that have to clean up after Hancock's messes, one cannot help but laugh at his creative forms of justice and servitude.

But after the fun is through and we have been sufficiently entertained by the humorous action and Hancock's apathetic character, the inevitable occurs and our hero develops in heroism. Due, in part, to PR executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a man who has faith in Hancock's ability to change and use his powers responsibly. He leads Hancock down a path to redemption, providing support and care that the superhero has never felt before. And it is as Hancock travels down this path that the film begins to show its heart.

The rest of the film retains some of its comedy, but a surprising amount of drama begins to come through as Hancock makes his choices to change and become a better man. This drama carries the rest of the film on its shoulders with ease. While at first it would seem that Hancock is another "with great power comes great responsibility" superhero flick, the unexpected curveballs that the plot throws make it much, much more than that and add so much to the core of the film.

The gritty drama is touching and powerful. Soon, Hancock is no longer an unlikable protagonist, but one to care for and even respect. The other characters grow on us at a level nearly equal with the hero as all of them are pulled together to face their own demons and share one between them. But it is the struggle that makes the message so strong and the experience so rewarding.

Of course, the film would not be nearly as good as it is without actors that fit so well inside their roles. Will Smith, who I consider to be somewhat of a hot-and-cold actor, is perfect for the role. His has proved his proficiency at playing the "I don't care, so get out of my face" role in previous films, and he does perhaps his finest job of that character in this movie. His facial expressions are dead on, he carries himself perfectly, and the way he reacts to those that don't approve of him...well...you can almost smell the liquor on his breath.

But when the film makes the transformation from comedy to drama, Smith matches his performance in the first half of the film. You can see the pain in his eyes, the care for the ones he has come to love. It's not difficult to call Hancock one of the better performances of Smith's career.

The other actors match Smith's acting ability. Charlize Theron, who plays PR Ray's wife, carries the role with her usual talent, and when the true depth of her character is revealed she pulls off a strong air of mystery that is nearly frightening at first and stays strong as more of the puzzle is put together. Jason Bateman is also a perfect choice for his role, and his interaction with Smith in some cases borders on hilarious as he tries to teach Hancock the basics of superhero right and wrong. And when the drama catches up, he too stays with his fellow actors step for step.

As for the action and special effects, they are nothing short of outstanding. The action, like the rest of the film, goes beyond the norm for its genre. And it does so by being so much more...epic. Some of the action is pretty much what could be expected from the trailer. It leans on the humorous side as Hancock flies and fights under the influence.

But as the film makes its transformation to the more dramatic side, so does the action. It becomes much grittier, darker, and, on the whole, more impressive. Hancock's flight battle in the midst of an incredibly powerful storm rivals the one from the end of Matrix: Revolutions, even surpassing it in the form of creativity. And his final stand at the conclusion of the film is not only powerful and touching, but also awesome to behold.

Though I find little to my disappointment, I must voice one complaint: the movie is not long enough. It doesn't necessarily feel rushed as the pacing is good throughout the film, but there is a sense that there could possibly be a little bit more. As the plotline twists, there are spots where it seems that more could have been done and more depth could be added to it. It's the depth that makes Hancock so excellent in the first place, and a little bit more could have made this great movie an epic one. Still, what isn't there doesn't necessarily take away in this case.

Morally, Hancock is worse than expected in some areas and gratefully mild in others. The language comes in large doses throughout the entirety of the film. The word "a**" and its derivatives (especially the term "a**hole") is used upwards of twenty times. Add in all the other cursing and it almost seems that the film came dangerously close to pushing its limits on PG-13 swearing. There is a fair amount of superhero violence, though things stay pretty mild until the last third of the film wherein the violence takes a much more dark and gritty feel. Things get much more intense, and there is also blood - not exactly gushing, but certainly present. As for sexual content, there is practically none save for a kiss between a man and his wife and Hancock attempting to touch a woman's behind.

Hancock isn't going to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but its originality is enough to make it worth the price to see it and will no doubt compete as one of the best films of the summer.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Studio/Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Director: Steven Spielberg
Release Date: May 22, 2008
Genre: Action/Adventure
Strong Points: Harrison Ford still using a whip, fantastic action scenes, excellent humor.
Weak Points: Major plot point feels a little out of place for Indiana Jones.
Technical Score: B+
Artistic Score: A
Final Score (not an average): B+
Moral Warnings: Plenty of action, a couple brief instances of somewhat gruesome violence.


I’ve never been the biggest fan of the Indiana Jones trilogy. I find them enjoyable. The movies are fun, but not something I would be compelled to see over and over again. I actually haven’t seen an Indiana Jones film in about a year, and then only because I was strongly urged to by a good friend of mine (who just so happens to be a fan of aforementioned trilogy). That same friend urged me to go see Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and I agreed. In retrospect, I'm quite glad that I did.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull takes place in 1957, and, as such, a number of things are different from the Indiana Jones movies we know from the ‘80s. Obviously, there are no more Nazis. They’ve all been shot, or have committed suicide, or been rounded up and imprisoned. No more Nazis. Indy’s new foes to fight are the Russian KGB, led by the dazzlingly sinister Cate Blanchett. Fortunately, like the Nazis the KBG are also after some supernatural power to help them rule the world more easily. And Indy is also still more than willing to try to stop them and save for the world, so all is well.

As for Indy...well...he’s older. But while he may not appear as impressive as he did back in the ‘30s, not much about him has changed. The same Indiana Jones sense of humor remains intact, he can still think on his feet, and, strangely enough (and yet so predictable), he’s able to perform all the crazy stunts that he was able to do twenty years ago. Though sometimes with not as much flair and efficiency due to his old age. The whole age concept is played with throughout a number of the action scenes, and is also used in the dialogue, all bringing about some great laughs.

The directing style of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is also different, though this isn’t a bad thing. It was intended by Lucas and Spielberg for the film to be shot as a 1950s B-movie. This formula doesn’t add to the charm of the previous films, nor does it take away. Instead, it fits right in with the classic combination of over-the-top violence and witty dialogue.

And of course there have been many advances in special effects since 1989. Despite that, Lucas and Spielberg decided not to capitalize on the advances in special effects. They instead rely on the simple fun of the earlier films, and I applaud them on this decision. CGI is a significant part of the climax of the movie, but that followed with the script ending and really couldn’t be avoided. And it’s avoided through so much of the rest of it that this can easily be overlooked.

As for the acting, there are familiar faces to see and some new ones along for the ride. And everyone measures up to the hype. Harrison Ford has always been the backbone of the Indiana Jones series, and he certainly hasn’t lost his ability to play that character. He’s just as enjoyable to watch on screen as he was twenty years ago. The other familiar face is found in Karen Allen, Indy’s love interest from Raiders of the Lost Ark. She returns with the same role, helping play with the whole age concept with Harrison Ford.

I’ve heard numerous complaints about the choice for Indy’s son in Shia LeBeouf. I never was a big fan, having endured a number of episodes of the crap kid TV show Evens Stevens that Shia starred in. But after seeing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I couldn’t disagree more with these complaints. Shia brings a grand amount of humor and life to the character, sharing some of the same traits of his father, while possessing a few of his own that make him original. Standing next to Harrison Ford, it’s not to difficult to see him as Indy’s heir.

As the villain, Cate Blanchet is genius, creating a truly sinister and greedy character. Her Russian accent is perfection, her sharp eyes pierce the screen with intimidation, and she’s a heck of a fencer.

I’ll admit that while the story carried itself along effortlessly, the last fifteen minutes or so felt out of place and somewhat weak. Everything finishes up nicely enough, but the result of finding the treasure they’ve been seeking doesn’t quite fit within the whole Indy style. Even so, the rest of the film is so enjoyable that this is easily forgivable.

As far as moral content, Crystal Skull is rather clean for a PG-13 movie. There is plenty of action to go around, but the action is all for fun and is often sprinkled with bits of humor physical gags. There are, however, some dark, frightening moments that could definitely cause younger viewers to be scared. During one of the scenes of action, a soldier is eaten alive by fire ants, and there's a close up of his face and the ants entering his mouth. Another character has her eyes burst into very CGI flame. These two scenes of cruelty are as graphic as the content gets, but it's worthy of note.

There is a small dosage of language sprinkled throughout the film, but for PG-13 it was quite a bit less than I expected and was happy with this. Also, there is practically no sexual content, save for a kiss at the end of the film.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was ultimately a very pleasant surprise, and I find next to nothing to complain about. The entire film is fun, funny, and...well...fantastic, rivaling its predecessors with its charm.

--Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)


===== Second Spin =====
Indiana Jones has never been a favorite film series for me. So many pieces of the series fit my movie preferences, but the end result never gained favorite status in my mind. Still, I did have some fun with the old trilogy, and managed to work up the ability to hope for something great out of Indy 4.

Unfortunately, the film left me feeling let down. As much as I tried to accept the movie on its own terms, I just couldn't enjoy this movie in its entirety. I found the special effects/green screening to be incredibly cheesy if not downright terrible. The actual storyline was rather disinteresting. The action was still very fun, but it was even more ridiculous than the original movies were. It's as if, in attempt to recapture the spirit of the old films, the filmmakers shot right past their goal and landed in the territory of a second-rate film with a first-rate budget.

While I could recommend the original trilogy for a bit of fun and character interaction, I just can't recommend the fourth installment in the same way. Even though I wasn't a big fan of the trilogy, I still managed to feel like I got a license cash-in that really didn't come close to doing the Indiana Jones name justice.

-Kenny Yeager (kenny@revolve21.com)
Read full article

National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets (2007)

Studio/Production Company: Walt Disney Pictures
Director: Jon Turteltaub
Release Date: December 21, 2007
Genre: Action/Adventure
Strong Points: Just plain fun, city of gold under a famous American monument
Weak Points: Could have used more of the James Bond type fun of the first film.
Technical Score: B
Artistic Score: B+
Final Score (not an average): B
Moral Warnings: Some mild language and sequences of action, a few somewhat intense.


When National Treasure came out in November of 2004, it was an instant hit. And with good reason. It was a fantastic popcorn film, balancing itself between its humor, ridiculous and over-the-top action/chase scenes, and clever puzzles, all revolving around our early American history. Sort of like Indiana Jones meets James Bond meets American history. National Treasure: Book of Secrets brings back all the classic fun of its predecessor, with some new faces and a new piece of the past to work around.

In Book of Secrets, not much has changed for our characters. Riley has written a book about the Templar Treasure and "other myths that are true." It is, however, not exactly the best selling work he had wanted it to be. Ben and Abigail have broken up, but Ben and his father are busy enough with all the historical societies that are interested in their presentations about Abraham Lincoln's assassination. But when a mysterious man by the name of Mitch Wilkinson publicly disproves the Gates' claims, the gang must get back together to try and find the facts that prove the Gates family had nothing to do with Lincoln's assassination. As can be expected, Book of Secrets tries to outdo its predecessor. Fortunately, the film never digresses to the point where you're thinking that they tried a bit too hard. There are some scenes that rely heavily on special effects to make aforementioned scenes possible, but it's not overdone and doesn't dredge things out. In fact, some of the computer generated sets are just downright gorgeous, especially towards the end of the movie when the Gates gang discovers a hidden treasure underneath Mount Rushmore. It's truly beautiful to the eyes.

The action scenes are ridiculously fun to watch. The puzzles that Ben and company come across, especially towards the end, result in some very clever, and even somewhat thrilling, situations that have you wondering exactly how they're going to pull it off. Each time, one of them uses his/her wit, and they are saved, not by brawn, but by the brain. It's actually one of the things that makes both National Treasure films so much fun. The action is there, yes, but the characters get out of the situations by using their heads and with much better results than if they had tried to solve things with force.

Of course, the conversations that lead to the logical conclusion of each puzzle often feature humor throughout. It's not the kind that will have you on the floor, but there are certainly a few genuine laughs to found in Book of Secrets. There was, however, one instance that nearly did have me on the floor. I won't give it away, but let's just say I never thought I'd see the day when Nicolas Cage uses a fake British accent to such perfection. That day has come.

Nicolas Cage is, naturally, perfect for the role. His portrayal of Ben Gates is wonderful, though I must say that he doesn't quite seem the type of person with such a ridiculous amount of historical facts stuck up in that noggin of his. Justin Bartha is just as subtly funny as he was the first time around, and both Diane Kruger and Jon Voight are still on par as well.

Two new faces make their appearance in Book of Secrets, one of which being the acting master Helen Mirren (she won the Oscar for Best Actress in 2007). She makes an addition to the cast as none other than Ben Gates' mother. That could have been funny enough, but most of the humor comes in her interactions with Jon Voight, him being her ex-husband. The bickering between them is just plain funny, and also throws in another subtle romantic twist to the story.

The other new face belongs to none other than Mr. Ed Harris as the villain, Mitch Wilkinson. One thing that's always impressed me about Ed Harris is that can play both the protagonist and antagonist, and he can play both with an equal level of skill. Wilkinson is, however, not nearly as stereotypically evil as Sean Bean was in the first film, and he shows at select occasions that despite his long to make his mark on history, he does have a conscience. Harris, as can be expected, fills the role very well and once again gives weight to my belief that the guy couldn't be a poor actor if you paid him.

And yet, after all of the good things in Book of Secrets, I somehow manage to find something that I didn't like. Some people may have thought thought that this element of the first movie was a rip off of James Bond, but I miss the use of electronics and technological equipment. There is a bit of it, but it's almost all borrowed from its predecessor and doesn't really bring anything new to the table. I think some more of that would have brought even better balance to an already well balanced film. Even so, this complaint is small, and the film is still very much enjoyable.

Overall, Book of Secrets is great for the entire family. Between its humor, over-the-top yet very entertaining action scenes, and the constant mystery of finding the next clue, it's just as much fun as the first film.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)
Read full article

Review - Iron Man

Studio/Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Director: Jon Favreau
Release Date: May 2, 2008
Genre: Superhero/Action
Strong Points: Exciting, naturally flowing plot, top notch action, humor throughout.
Weak Points: Somewhat stereotypical in some places; doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the genre.
Technical Score: B+
Artistic Score: A
Final Score (not an average): B+
Moral Warnings: Mild cursing, a brief scene of sensuality, action-oriented and somewhat violent at parts.


Superhero movies have been part of movie culture for decades. Some establish themselves as being very unique (Tim Burton's Batman movies come to mind), some go beyond the typical superhero design to deliver a message (V for Vendetta), and some focus on what these movies first and foremost are all about - the classic tale of good verses evil.

This would be the latter.

Iron Man has all the makings and the formula of your standard super hero film - a likable protagonist; an originally friendly, then turned evil antagonist; a best buddy to help in dire situations; and, of course, a compelling love interest. If you've seen any superhero film that's come out in the past eight years, you should know this formula well. But what separates Iron Man from most of its competitors is that it brings all these elements together with near perfection and more than a little bit of flair.

A lot of Iron Man's charm is made with Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of our protagonist, Tony Stark. He's the owner of a billion-dollar weapons manufacturing industry (affectionately named Stark Industries... cute, eh?) with plenty of confidence, wit, and a touch of simple, sarcastic humor. But after being captured by a group of terrorists in the Middle East who use the weapons he created, Stark realizes that his industry isn't saving the lives he thought it was. After escaping, he decides to build something a little special to help him destroy the weapons being used to kill innocents.

Fortunately, his experience as a captive does not leave him traumatized. His character deepens with a desire to do good, but all of the wit and humor remain. This provides for some excellent and often laughable dialogue that keeps things balanced and enjoyable without drowning the audience in misplaced drama (Spiderman 3, anyone?).

While almost all of the characters fit perfectly in the movie, my one complaint would have to be with the antagonist, Obadiah Stane. Jeff Bridges brings a lot to the character in the first half of the movie, but when he is revealed as evil, Stane becomes too stereotypical. The depth was lost, and instead replaced with the usual bad guy role. It works, yes, but there could have been a bit more in comparison with the rest of the film, which strove to provide that 'bit' more all the way through.

The developers used Stark's Iron Man suit to perfection, balancing the comic-book feel with realism that is visually very impressive. Spandex and tights are OUT. Golden and red metal - IN.

Of course, what good would such an awesome suit be if it didn't allow the wearer to do equally awesome things? And awesome things Iron Man does. Bullets are cool (which he also has), but blasts of pure energy from his palms are even better. In the first scene that Stark fights with his suit, I thought that the palm-blasting was all he could do, but there are plenty of other weapons and gadgets that keep all of the action entertaining as you wonder what Iron Man will do next to defeat his foes.

Oh yeah...the flying scenes? They make Superman look like a pansy. Sorry, Clark.

As for moral elements, Iron Man is fairly clean. There is plenty of action to go around, but none of it is too violent and there isn't any blood. There are two scenes in which people are paralyzed by a special gadget that makes the veins in their face stick out out a bit, but that's about as far as that goes. One can also expect some mild cussing throughout the film, and there is a brief scene of sexuality between Tony Stark and a reporter, but this is thankfully quite short and doesn't get very far before the scene change.

Iron Man takes all the classic elements that we'd expect from a film such as this and combines them together better than any super hero movie since Spiderman (and maybe even better than that). Any of its kind that are set to come out this summer have big shoes to fill. The bar has been set, and it's very high.

-Zak Mellgren (zak@revolve21.com)
Read full article