X-Men Origins: Wolverine

While not an utter failure, XO: Wolverine does create a considerable amount of disappointment in this fan's memory. From the opening scene, something was...off. Watching the sickly young Wolvie lashing out in grand fashion was played for drama and shock, but instead introduced the audience to the film's most glaring fault - actors playing for dark, deep drama and missing at most every turn. Nothing about about XO: Wolverine rings with any authenticity. After facing this flaw early on, I was ready and willing to just accept the film on another level - a fun summer blockbuster. That doesn't really work either. The film employs a mess of side characters and a blistering pace to head toward its even bigger mess of a climax. At the point Wolverine learns he's been duped, I said to myself, "Well, duh. It was choreographed a long time ago." When Ryan Reynolds (?!) shows up ragged and mad and evil in the end, I was not surprised nor interested at all. Was he really ever a good guy? Was he ever important to the story before this? No for both. How about after the bad ass surgeries? No. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is really the only bright spot (though the opening credits war montage was stunning in its own irrelevant way). It's clear Jackman cares about the character and brings that interest to the role each time out. But he can't make any new impressions when the director Gavin Hood, writers David Benioff and Skip Woods, and their film editors won't allow their story to find any footing in any given scene before blasting off to the next sequence (even if it's just Jackman and the awful (but awfully attractive) Lynn Collins chatting and/or making lovey dovey eyes at each other. A sense of real weight to ANY (ANY!) of the scenes would have paid huge dividends. Sadly, Liev Shreiber (my great hope for a compelling villain) can't save his dialogue. Likewise, the wonderful, Danny Huston (please see The Proposition) fails to improve or match Brian Cox's performance as General Striker in X2. I'll watch it again with lowered expectations with the hope of new entertainment, buy my first viewing left me hungry for Terminator: Salvation (and McG?!?). Wolverine is a great character. The franchise is far from dead. I just hope new blood behind the scenes can renew my interest again.

**

Push

Push isn't a necessary addition to the superhero genre, but it is a nice diversion. It looks great with it's bleached tones and vibrant colors. Some of the action pieces are well-photographed and staged (chiefly a short chase in a Hong Kong market). The basis of the plot seems so simple, but screenwriter David Bourla throws in a needlessly convoluted device to catapult the film through its climax. Like a time travel movie, it's hard to follow the movie through each step of its paces. When it ends, it's hard to tell if the whole thing works because you're still trying to figure out if the device works and, more importantly, if it was necessary at all. What Bourla gets right is his lingo. Each super-powered human type gets its own term ("mover", "sniffer", "watcher", etc.) that actually adds a unique aspect to the film. Chris Evans plays the lead and doesn't add anything special, but does prove that his solid work in Sunshine wasn't a fluke. He's not an A-list talent, but he fills this type of role just fine. Dakota Fanning, moving into teenage roles, is not a unique talent anymore. She's a fine actress, but this role isn't tailored for her skills. She's doesn't have the dry wit to pull off the attitude or her dialogue. But she's scores above Camille Bell, the beauty playing the question mark of the film. She's unquestionably beautiful, but she has all the charisma of a mannequin. Djimon Hounsou's talents are also wasted as the head villain. All in all, Push is pretty good; but is only notable for how good it could have been.

***

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is nothing special and doesn't really have anything working for it other than its fanbase and mythology from the previous two films of the franchise. I count myself as a part of that fanbase, and on that basis, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you don't give more than a hoot about any of the Underworld movies, you can skip Underworld:ROTL with nary a regret. I enjoyed seeing Michael Sheen reprise his role as Lucian and fight Billy Nighy (though Nighy has abandoned all restraint he may have possessed). The two actors have fun, even when saying the preposterous dialogue. All three Underworld films share a screenwriter, but something is lost when the dialogue is put back into the Medievalish language. Rhona Mitra is a rare beauty, but she cannot fill the heroine role the way Kate Beckinsale does in the first two films. Kevin Grevioux, one of the orginators of the franchise with a strangely deep voice and muscled physique, reprises his Underworld role. However, his talent is sorely lacking and more apparent with a larger role in this installment of the franchise. In the end, the film is a fun diversion on a Friday night and a welcome pleasure for fans who like their vampire films to take themselves seriously without actually being serious. Are there anymore of us out there?

***

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

It's hard to praise the third installment of The Mad Max Franchise, because it is essentially a retread of its own now familiar territory. Mad Max is a great character and anti-hero and his journey to stay alive without giving too much of himself to others is an intriguing one. I've read that before starting to plot out The Road Warrior, writer-director George Miller immersed himself in old Samurai and western films. Mad Max certainly fits within those forebearers' walls. In Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome, he is even briefly referred to as the "Man with No Name," a not so subtle shout out to Clint Eastwood iconic character in Sergio Leone films.

But Mad Max places it's anti-hero in an original backdrop - a post-apocalyptic, gasoline and morally starved Australia whose inhabitants have taken to dressing like punks and renaissance fair rejects.

It's an intriguing setting for action, and it seems that, above all, that is the chief component of the Mad Max series.

When Max is thrust into the gladiatorial Thunderdome of the title, it's a sensational set piece - strange because it is used only once and because it echoes the poorly conceived gauntlets of the syndicated 90s American Gladiator show. Then, echoing the amazing final action set piece of The Road Warrior, director Miller sets the reluctant Max driving away from a horde of baddies on his tail. It's a bit too familiar, but still finishes in grand fashion.

Thunderdome features unique aspects, too. Tina Turner (?!) as the head miscreant rivals Lord Humungous for spiteful power. A little person using a masked brute as his vehicle/bodyguard who starts the film as a odd bully grows to be the more valuable of supporting characters. But most important and entertaining of the new additions is a group of Lord of the Flies/Lost Boys tribal kids who think Max is the one prophesied to take them to their own Promised Land. The scenes with the kids and Max eerily echoes the introduction of the Lost Boys in Hook to the point that my brother was blindly shouting "Rufio" over the action onscreen.

As I said earlier, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome isn't anything superbly new or exotic when compared to its prequels, but it is supremely entertaining and opens the Max's world to let more imagination in. And though Thunderdome is softer than its predecessors, it is dark and odd enough to rightfully be claimed a part of the Mad Max franchise.

****

Body of Lies

Body of Lies is a solid thriller and the first war on terror movie of recent years to put entertainment first. That could be problem number one, but the filmmakers are aware of the need for the audience to stay engaged with the material when others have put messages and political posturing ahead of said entertainment. There are politics involved, but most of the heavy-handedness is left behind in favor of a lesser form of Tony Scott's Enemy of the State's satellite views and board rooms and Peter Berg's The Kingdom's street battles. Leonardo Dicaprio acts through his Southern Twang and curiously bushy beard (you get used to it - you shouldn't have to really, but you will) to play the CIA's man on the ground in the Middle East. Russell Crowe acts through his Tom Cruise in Collateral hair, accent, spectacles and protruding paunch (and more effectively than his counterpart) to play the CIA suit back in the U.S. of A.. And the excellent Mark Strong plays a Jordanian intelligence head. All the performers sink their teeth into their parts, adding considerable bravado to their roles. I bought into it, though the push to ACT may irk some. The film, like writer William Monahan's breakthrough The Departed, is an excercise in genre. Unlike The Departed (a film I still declare is overrated), Monahan's Body of Lies script doesn't have any overtly memorable dialogue. In truth, it entertains without being memorable. It's better than a one-watcher, but doesn't hold up to the shadow of the underrated and already forgotten August film Traitor. And after the entertainment ends in Body of Lies, I'm left to wonder what if anything I have learned, or more importantly if I should (given the setting, plot, and current world politics) be learning anything. Well directed, acted, and filmed but not lasting in impact. And then Traitor comes to mind...The problem is that Body of Lies is entertaining in a fun way - all the violence, backstabbing, and spying I appreciate in a CIA thriller...only it's really happening somewhere in the world right now. And maybe I should rethink entertainment in general. Because Traitor is entertaining AND says something more than just the reality of the complexity and difficulty of international intelligence. Plus Don Cheadle is as fine as any other actor out there right now. Here's me asking P.T. Anderson or Steven Soderberg to cast him in another one of their ensemble dramas again.



Traitor ***1/2
Body of Lies ***

The Pineapple Express

I got a chance to see an early screening of this movie at the Landmark. It was a blast. It's really what you'd expect when the writers of Superbad decided to make a stoner action/comedy. Zany, irreverent, goofy, and outlandish with just a smidgen of duder love. James Franco, Seth Rogen, and hilarious, but once again the writers have set up a scene-stealing role. It was McLovin in Superbad, but the most memorable part of The Pineapple Express is Danny McBride as Red. Gut-busting funny.

There is a lot of riffing going on and it can be a bit over done sometimes. I imagine the run-time will be reduced when it's released in theaters in August, and these riffs could be the starting point as could the uneven and awkward scenes between Gary Cole and Rosie Perez as the bad guys. It's not like I expect stand out realistic performances from comedies like this one, but each time they were on screen, I was annoyed and wanted to get back to the heroes. The heavies (including Craig Robinson from the American "The Office" and Kevin Corrigan) don't really hold a candle to Rogen, Franco, and McBride's antics.

It's strange to think I could find people being high so entertaining on screen and be utterly unamused when people do drugs off screen. Keep the screw ups screwing up on screen and not in my backyard.

***1/2

Tim Burton's Batman "The Joker is more of an annoying pest than a villain."

I didn't see this movie until college. I liked it. I thought it was a lot of fun. I asked for it for my birthday. I got it. I watched the excellent special features yesterday afternoon. I got excited to see the movie again. By the time the credits started rolling, I was disappointed. There's no real excuse. I first saw it when my eye for quality was developed. I had seen it several times on AMC (albeit in parts). I hadn't loved the film as a kid, so nostalgia wasn't an excuse for my mistake.

Batman is an exercise in ambition. Tim Burton and the film's producers had big plans for the movie. From the DVD interviews, it's apparent that they thought they had created something really special. The problem is that ambition is nothing without execution. Batman fails in nearly every aspect of its execution.

It's hard to criticize Jack Nicholson for going over the top with his performance. He's the Joker, for Moses' sake. There aren't any rules for playing a character like that. There should have been, though. Nicholson is clearly having the time of his life playing the role, but I must admit I had very little fun with him. He does anything he pleases and I wish a director would have reigned him more. Nicholson unleashed in any situation is cause for alarm. He's not menacing enough. And somebody tell somebody that Jack Nicholson's little jigs in character are not amusing.

That led to other problems. The screenwriters have to make scenes for Nicholson to do his thing, so they put him in that stupid museum scene. A chance to work in the Prince music ("Partyman" is the title of the song) should have been passed up. A terrible idea. Batman's entrance and exit are good. The rest is hammy junk.

Another scene suffering from failed ambition is the bell tower scene. Great plan. Bad execution. It shows sparks of quality, but crumbles under the weight of Nicholson and Basinger's goofy routines. Seriously, there's nothing less climatic than watching Nicholson ham it up as he dances on that ledge and makes his getaway.

Putting Batman into action is the best thing the filmmakers do. It's when they throw him in the mix with the Joker that things falter. And that's a lot of the time. I actually liked the action scenes for what they were, but again the Joker is more of an annoying pest than a villain. Batman should have kicked the crap out of him twenty times over.

The Bruce Wayne scenes are fairly bad as well. There is no chemistry between Michael Keaton and Kim Basinger, so their scenes together are always a bit awkward. It doesn't help that Basinger isn't a good actress. I'm not saying the role called for her to stretch her acting muscles, but any number of actresses could have added zest to the role. Keaton can play the charming billionaire well, but when he's out of costume, he left me itching for him to jump back into it. His knight in shining armor shtick at Vale's apartment is weak and laughable at best. Put the guy in that suit and let those eyes and that cool, stoic hero's voice do the work.

The sets are great. The first third of the movie is actually quite good. But I'm afraid that the corniness and levity that the filmmakers said they so wanted to avoid eventually crept in and sapped all the entertainment from Batman.

**1/2

The Kingdom

The Kingdom is a politically-minded action film set in the heat of Saudi Arabia. Its mission is to address the situation in the Middle East while pleasing those who watched the trailer and came to see guns fired and cars blown up. It succeeds at both, though when the smoke clears I left the theater unsatisfied and disappointed.

The Kingdom follows a team of F.B.I. agents (Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman) who finagle their way onto Saudi Arabian soil to investigate a terrorist attack on Americans living within an oil industry community.

Upon arriving, the agents are told by their Saudi military liaison played by Ashraf Barhom that they will be playing by his rules. The agents do not like that. They want to go to work immediately. It is apparent that they do not understand the danger their lives are in just for being there. That, or they do not care. Their need for revenge is clear.

We learn that the police investigating the attack are incompetent navel-gazers who do not know how to find and process evidence. It is up to the Americans to set them straight and bring the culprits to justice.

This sets the tone for the film. The Americans are here to "help". That means leading, planning, and shooting a helluva lot of Saudi extremists in a bloodbath in the film's burst of energy approaching the end of the film. The Saudis are seen as
a people who need direction. The F.B.I. team are just the ones to provide it.

The presentation of the Saudi people could be accused of being too one-sided if not for the presence of the liaison. It is hard to praise the characters in this film because there isn't a lot offered in way of development or background. However, deliberate strides were made to make the liaison a more complicated man than any of the other Saudis we meet in the film. While I appreciated this attempt, it made me wonder why this wasn't the case with more of the Saudis we meet. We have the liaison and one more policeman who is brutally interrogated about the attack that present the other side of the conflict in Saudi Arabia. Everyone else is an extremist or a narrow-minded, incompetent, brutal, or oblivious officer, prince, or policeman.

The film also attempts to present a strongly political message about America's foreign involvement, but still stays loyal to the confines of the expectations of its audience. The film has been marketed primarily as an action film of sorts. The filmmakers don't really stray from some of the genre's conventions.

The agents and their liaison are in a terrible crash, the kind that flips a car over numerous times, slams it against the ground and slides it for what seems like forever. It is a mere matter of seconds between the time the car stops sliding and the team and the liaison are out firing at their enemy and hopping into a car to pursue them as they flee. There're cuts, scrapes, and blood, but no one seems to have any broken limbs, concussions, or be in need of medical attention.

The team becomes involved in a firefight in a corner of a village. They are only four of them surrounded by dozens of extremists with rocket launchers, machetes, assault rifles, and grenades. Still the team blasts their way through.

There is an air of authenticity that the film tries to create, but moments and flaws like the ones I mention detract from any maintenance of that air. It cannot survive under the weight of its own illogical entertainment. Some of these complaints are nitpicking, but much of this will be apparent to any discerning audience member who sits down in a theater seat and watches.

There is a scene where someone asks what was whispered to someone to stop them from crying. I was expecting something profound like "this too shall pass," but I heard a more honest answer. He whispered that they were gonna kill them all. There is some quality to the film because there is a look of disgust as the one who said that earlier in the film recounts his prior mindset to his team. The film presents the idea that that state of mind will not end the conflict in the Middle East.

**1/2

The Bourne Ultimatum

I loved this film. I was gripping my armrests the whole time. Somehow, the filmmakers managed to top its predecessors from the series in action, suspense, and memory-centric plotting and espionage.

There were times in the film when the danger was very real, moments when I thought characters were going to die, to fail, to lose their way. Of course, that is all artifice because the film is engineered to race towards its conclusion like a speeding train.

It's interesting how the film managed to incorporate a character I had little interest in from the first two movies and make her necessary and...well...interesting. Julia Stiles CIA techie matters in the scheme of the film's plot, and I really didn't expect to care so much about her. When Bourne races to save her while an assassin is hot on her trail, I desperately wanted him to be her knight in shining armor. And what's so strange is to be that invested in the fate of a character that meant little or nothing to me in her earlier forms. The credit should go to the writers, but also to Stiles. I often am less than pleased with the actress' work (i.e. - Hamlet, The Omen), but she makes great strides in Ultimatum.

It's so easy to praise the film - the assured directing, the taught script, the supporting cast - that it somehow becomes easy to pass over Matt Damon's performance. It would be so easy for an actor to phone in a performance after playing the character in two previous movies, but Damon is on his game, confident in his interpretation of his character to the point that all that cool composure, that furrowed brow, and the daring physical feats seem effortless somehow. Although Damon infuses Bourne with mannerisms and personality (or lack thereof) from the first two films, the character is still fresh while his character's search for his past is endless and bitter at every turn. I saw Ocean's Thirteen a few days after Ultimatum and the comparison of Damon's performances enhanced my enjoyment of his portrayal of Bourne. Whereas Damon's Linus in Ocean's Thirteen is so far from confident and composed, Damon's Bourne is the opposite. Linus is essentially phoned in, while Bourne shows the work of an actor striving to bring a character believably alive off of the page.

My only complaint (because I don't want to nitpick a film I enjoyed so thoroughly) is that the flashbacks of Bourne's past have grown old. They change throughout the series, perhaps progressing to a moment of complete revelation, but the familiar blurry scene, fuzzy voices, and wavy lenses and camera tilts are tired. I understand the flashbacks have been established in the first two films, and it would be very difficult and awkward to change the style for the third, but I find them almost tacky in a otherwise perfectly composed film. I mean, really! Is there no other way for memories save for the Bourne style and the pink waves and sound cues of Saved by the Bell?

Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Get Excited.

****

The Bourne Identity

If you spend some time looking over the reviews for The Bourne Identity on rottentomatoes.com, you'll find a lot of talk about how smart it is. I won't deny that. You'll also read about critics calling it a throw back to older spy and action films. That I cannot comment on, mainly because almost all of the genre that I have seen has been of a fairly recent nature. I do wish that these critics wrote about how much fun the movie is. It contains some of the coolest action scenes in recent memory including a car chase that has long been one of my favorites (I'd probably say that the 18+ minute car chase extravangaza in The Matrix: Reloaded is my favorite. Fun = kung fu fight on movie semi truck.). The scene in the field at the farmhouse has always got my heart beat moving faster. I am barely able to restrained myself from pumping my fist into the air The Breakfast Club style. There's also a little awesome meter blowout in the stairwell scene near the end.

But that's not all. It is well made. The cinematography is swell. Doug Liman knows how to put an action scene together. The script is tight, although the brevity and subtlety in the dialogue definitely improves in Tony Gilroy's script for The Bourne Supremacy. The acting is good not great. Franke Potente has some wonderfully subtle looks where you can see the gears in her head turning. Matt Damon is not nearly as subtle, but the intensity in Bourne's resolve and practiced assassin moves is palpable. I also love a movie where Chris Cooper gets to act grumpy and weathered (for lack of a better word). The guy's a pro. Even though it's a fairly straight forward character and performance, Cooper rules.

The inclusion of a beautiful stranger oddly attracted to the mystery and action of Bourne's life is a nice move. I couldn't necessarily understand why in the world she wanted to go through all that even when given opportunities to get out, except that perhaps getting out meant getting back to an aimless life always moving and passing through. I think she reveled in the opportunity to latch onto something or someone interesting and exciting and dangerous. She was smitten.

There are themes of finding yourself and facing the ghosts in your past. Neither is whispered. These themes are obvious and often voiced directly. The film likes to spell out its conflicts. That is not surprising for the genre. Even though the film has a bit of a twist near the end when we find out how Bourne ended up in the water where the fishing boar found him, the surprise in minimal. The genuine pleasure of those scenes is seeing how Bourne responds to his revelations about his past. The constant longing for memories and clarity soon becomes a tight rope walk where Bourne could fall if he keeps learning about his checkered past. He wants to know more, but he's scared it'll keep turning up dark.

In the special features on The Bourne Files recent DVD collection, the makers of the film keep saying that Bourne is a special kind of hero because he is human, but they keep showing clips of him doing superhuman feats. If Bourne was as human as I was, I am not sure I would get as excited about the film. Bourne is certainly not ordinary. As common as amnesia is in movies and TV, I don't read about it too often in the newspaper or see feature stories about those suffering about it on the evening news. It is a sensational character affliction that instantly adds mystery and drama to any genre. But it's an unusual occurence in real life, so the inclusion of it already raises the stakes and reality of the film. It's not normal. Bourne is not normal. Sure, the guy's human. He regrets things he's done. I imagine the entire human race can relate to that. But he can also memorize maps, shoot a gun like nobody's business, drive like a messy pro, drop an enemy with quick moves from a Bruce Lee film, and make split sceond decisions where the ordinary person would be crippled with panic. I like that kind of guy. I want to watch that kind of guy. In an action film anyways.

There was also a lot of talk when the second movie came out that the sequel had surpassed its predecessor, but I think it's really subjective to the viewer rather than a tangible fact. If you like slicker flicks, The Bourne Identity is probably the one for you. If you like gritty, handheld flicks, The Bourne Supremacy is probably your favorite cup of tea. Or you could be like me and have great difficulty in choosing one over the other.

****

Spiderman 3

I was completely on board with this movie until the onset of the third act. Try as they might, the filmmakers could not disguise the awkwardness of tossing together all the subplots together for the grand finale. I could nitpick for a couple pages, but I will simply say that I did like the film. It's fun, even zany (successfully) at times. And I know the romance scenes aren't supposed to be the draw here, but I think that's where Alvin Sargent succeeded where David Koepp could not. He added a believable, deep (you know, for a $250 million dollar summer superhero movie) dimension to Spiderman. I will say that I think Kirsten Dunst has really grown into her role over the years. I am not really a fan of the actress, but I can be pleasantly surprised by her from time to time. She ends up delivering the most grounded performance of the movie, except maybe for Rosemary Harris as Aunt May. Who couldn't love a gal like Aunt May? It's a little long, but I think it's worth a watch.

***

Casino Royale

I actually don't have a lot to say about Casino Royale other than it was probably the most entertaining movie of the year. I didn't grow up on Bond movies. I wasn't allowed to watch them because of the way Bond treated women (as objects, I guess). Because Daniel Craig was the new Bond and everything I heard and read pointed towards Royale being the grittiest and darkest Bond yet, I hopped on board. I was not let down. The movie is a rush. The action is intense. The plot is believable (well, you know, at least plausible). And Craig is the real deal. An actor's actor bringing his chops to an iconic character and making his own Bond (from what I can tell). The plot gets muddled near the end, but I can forgive the film easily because it's such a blast.

***1/2