Rango (2011)

Movies I thought of while watching Rango: High Noon, The Man with No Name Trilogy, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Cat Ballou, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Yojimbo, Unforgiven, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Movies I did not think of while watching Rango: Rango.

At what point does a movie stop being its own film, and start becoming a clip show of Hollywood's greatest hits? When John Logan was writing Rango, perhaps he should have put a little less effort into paying homage to so many great films. His basic story is a very interesting one: a lizard that has been kept as a pet suddenly finds himself in an old west town called Dirt, where he has reinvented himself as a gunslinger. That lizard (voiced admirable by Johnny Depp) is the titular Rango, who enjoyed putting on theatrical performances in his terrarium before he suffered an environment change. Shortly after establishing himself as an expert marksmen (accidentally), Rango is promoted to town Sheriff by the Mayor of Dirt (Ned Beatty), a character obviously derived from John Huston's character in Chinatown. But as Rango delves deeper into an investigation about the town's water supply, he finds that the old west may not be the best place for a thespian lizard.

The main problem with Rango is lack of identity. The lead lizard himself is sufferring an identity crisis throughout the film, constantly asking through gloomy voiceover "who am I?" While watching Rango, I sometimes felt as though the movie were asking me "what am I?" The only thing I can say for sure is that Rango is a western, through and through. But where Logan and director Gore Verbinski go wrong is they constantly remind us of past great films, but fail to make Rango anywhere near as good as them. It reaches a point where you ask, "well, why don't I just see those movies?" The highlight of the film comes in the very beginning when Rango is running away from a hawk with another desert creature. This scene is both funny and exciting, and one of the few times that Rango is it's own film. After the scene ends however, the clip show begins.

The animation of Rango is really the saving grace of the film. Every character, though ugly, is beautifully rendered. The most interesting character to look at is bad guy Rattlesnake Jake, voiced by Bill Nighy. His winding, scaly body leads to a tail topped with a Gatling gun instead of a rattle. Every scene with him is thrilling to watch, and in fact were the only times during Rango when my heart actually felt involved in the film. Unfortunately, his scenes don't show up until much later in the film, and they are very scarce even then.

One more important thing that must be stressed is that Rango is NOT a children's movie. Despite being produced by Nickelodeon, this film is riddled with adult humor that children will not understand. On top of that, the humor is not even that funny. You may smirk at an inappropriate comment, but there is very little to laugh at here. Even though the MPAA chose to leave the word "violence" out of it's rating, Rango is littered with it, from claims to cutting off other characters "giblets" to a supporting character who constantly walks around with an arrow through his eye.

Rango is an hour and 47 minutes, but feels a lot longer. It has terrific animation, well crafted action scenes, but an overall slow pace and a very annoying lead character in Rango. Many will find the references to other films endearing and fun, but I found them to be distracting. You are probably better off just watching any of the films I listed earlier. My rating (3/10)

Kick-Ass (2010)

Being a superhero is as close as a fictional character can get to becoming a celebrity. Many people forget the names of actors and actresses, but nobody is going to dig through their mind trying to remember who the guy in the bat suit is. This easy notoriety is the reason so many of us fantasize about having superpowers (and don't pretend that you don't). So, how come nobody has tried to be a superhero? This is the exact question Kick-Ass' protagonist Dave Lizewski asks his two nerdy friends as they hang out in their local comic book store. If you ask me, it's to prevent movies like Kick-Ass from being made.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a textbook nerd. He has big glasses, a cracking voice, and is utterly invisible to the popular crowd at school. His favorite hang out spot is a comic book store with his two friends that do nothing to improve his image. Fed up with being useless in a world run by crime, Dave decides that what we really need is a superhero. Equipped with absolutely no combat skills, a green wet suit, and some clubs, Dave assumes his alter-ego as Kick-Ass. Little does Dave know that he is not the only superhero on the block. After narrowly being killed by thugs, Dave is saved by Big Daddy and Hit-Girl (Nicolas Cage and Chloe Moretz), a father-daughter team set on seeking vengeance for a past atrocity by crime lord Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). Soon after, Dave discovers that being a superhero may not always be worth the fame.

Kick-Ass is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Mark Millar. I have not read the graphic novel, but I have no doubt that it was much better than this film. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Kick-Ass because of Chloe Moretz's role as Hit Girl. There is apparently something about a 13 year old sporting a trucker's foul mouth and a tendency towards bloody violence that just did not sit right with most parents. Well, I'm no parent. Hit Girl was one of the only good things about this movie. As a source of several of the few laughs to be had, Chloe Moretz does an apt job of keeping this otherwise lackluster film afloat. But the real treat was seeing her interact with her character's father, Big Daddy, played brilliantly by Nicolas Cage. Cage and Moretz bring undeniable chemistry to the screen, and are an absolute delight to watch. The best scene in the entire film comes when we first meet Big Daddy and Hit Girl as their plain clothes selves, Damon and Mindy Macready. Former cop Damon is teaching his daughter how to deal with pain...by shooting her in the chest while she wears a bullet proof vest. This scene gave me hope that this movie would have many more brilliant scenes to come. Unfortunately, this movie was not called Big Daddy and Hit Girl. It's Kick-Ass. So let's discuss the titular hero.

Do you know how fun it is to watch somebody who cannot fight, try to beat up a group of criminals? You may think it's kind of funny for a few minutes, but after a while it just becomes kind of sad. Well that is how I felt watching Kick-Ass. First of all, the character of Dave Lizewski was one that I had no feelings towards. Aaraon Johnson was not doing enough to create a main character that was worthy of my sympathy. I did not care about him. Because of this, my interest in the character was void. There may have been some hope when he became Kick-Ass, but I soon discovered another problem. It is just no fun to watch somebody flail their arms around in a green wet suit. I understand that his inability to fight was the point, but that doesn't make it a good point. Every film has two basic sides: the point (message, theme, etc) and the entertainment (emotional responses). You can have effective entertainment without having an effective point, but you can NEVER have an effective point without effective entertainment. You can make a film about the most important subject ever, but if I don't like the way you tell the story, than why should I care? Sadly, Kick-Ass does not gain fighting skills throughout the course of the film, so any scene with him is just as monotonous as Johnson's voice over.

Well maybe Kick-Ass shouldn't be graded on its performances. After all, it has been advertised as a high-octane violence fest. Surely, the action sequences are top notch and worth the films downfalls. Well, don't be so sure. There are actually relatively few fight scenes in Kick-Ass, and there are even fewer that are actually fun to watch. The best fight in the film belongs to Big Daddy. It was well choreographed and excellently filmed. Unfortunately, it lasts only about 20 seconds. The majority of the fighting in the film is done by Hit Girl, and though her moves are eye-poppingly exciting the first few times around, they became rather stale near the end. I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again.

Kick-Ass is a movie that should have remained a graphic novel. It's protagonist did not transfer well to the screen, and neither did it's style. Perhaps if the film focused more on Big Daddy and Hit Girl it would have been a lot better, but that probably would have upset the fanboys of the graphic novel. I cannot recommend this film to anybody over the age of 30 or under the age of 17. This film is perfect for the college crowd but will not sit well with anyone else. And I have a feeling that in a couple of years, not many people will even remember it. My rating (4/10)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

"We ain't in the prisoner-takin business. We in the kiliin Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin". This line, spoken by Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, should just about sum up Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. The "We" in question: eight Jewish-American soldiers (accompanied by German defect Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) that have vowed to deliver 100 Nazi scalps each to their leader, the aforementioned Raine. Their group's name: the Inglourious Basterds. Don't ask about the spelling. It's never explained. These men have made quite the impression on the Third Reich, angering Hitler himself and landing on the radar of "the Jew hunter" Colonel Hans Landa (superbly played by Christoph Waltz). Showing no fear for possible death, the Basterds join a mission called Operation Kino. The mission, being carried out with the help of German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark (a traitor to her own country, clearly), involves suicide bombing a movie theater that happens to be inhabited by the four major heads of power in the Third Reich, including Hitler. Little do the Basterds know that while they carry out their plan, the owner of the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) has her own scheme in the works. When Dreyfus was a teenager, her family was murdered by Hans Landa, and she considers this to be the perfect time for revenge. Will either parties succeed in their mission? History says no, but Quentin Tarantino didn't set out to make a historically accurate film.

THE REST OF THIS REVIEW IS LOCATED AT http://www.7tavern.com/4/28/1264

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

This review will be the first of what I'm calling "Shorties". Every now and then, if I want to post a review but simply do not have the time to devote a full length article to it, or if I want to get it out of the way for another review, I'll write a Shorty. These will be far less detailed than full length reviews, but it will still get my point across (hopefully).

With Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Michael Bay has once again dominated the summer box office. This second installment has been a smash hit, raking in $672 million worldwide in 3 weeks. But is all this attention really necessary? In 2007, Transformers delivered the high octane adrenaline rush a summer movie-goer craves. It's story took a back seat to flashy special effects and a very appealing Megan Fox. So what does Revenge really offer us in terms of originality? The answer is not much.

In this unnecessary sequel, director Michael Bay, along with writers Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Ehren Kruger, drags us through the exact same film that he released two years ago, but with more Transformers, less plot (I didn't think that was possible), more suggestive shots of Megan Fox, and a little more length. To speak frankly about Revenge of the Fallen, it was a terrible film. No good performances, a terrible script, and noticably long. But who really cares about those things when they buy a ticket for this movie. You want to know about the action. Although the action was fairly impressive, there really wasn't much here that wasn't in the first film. It was more of the same, and it got pretty boring. I am also surprised that there has been no backlash by the African American community about the blatant stereotypes that the writers sprinkled into this film. Two brand new Transformers, Mudflap and Skids, are walking caricatures of all the generalizations of African Americans in our society. I was kind of insulted by it, and I'm white! I couldn't believe this cheap attempt at comic relief. Truly reprehensible.

I can't take too much credit away from Revenge of the Fallen, because it was never really trying to be anything more than it was. It had no aspirations, rather than to be loud and entertain. For that I give it credit. Also, suprisingly, I understood more of what was happening on screen in this film than I did during Public Enemies. For that, I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a 5/10

Public Enemies (2009)

From the first scene of Michael Mann's Public Enemies, I knew the ride would be bumpy. As John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is led through the front gates of a prison, the camera jostles up and down in motion with the characters walking, but with extreme exaggeration. After a few lines of mumbled dialogue the cameraman evidently has a seizure while Dillinger and his jailhouse friends stage a breakout. As Dillinger and his buddies, including John "Red" Hamilton (Jason Clarke) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff), exit with guns blazing, not a moment of it is comprehensible through the frenetic cinematography and abrasively loud gunfire. This is just the beginning of the numerous complaints I have about Public Enemies.

In the year 1933, suave criminal John Dillinger is running wild in Chicago. Robbing banks in "a minute and 40 seconds. Flat." has made him public enemy number 1 for J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) FBI. With Dillinger gaining popularity in the public eye for his easy-going demeanor, Hoover is desperate to get the criminal to the electric chair. So he hires Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man who hunted down and killed Pretty Boy Floyd, to spearhead the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, including notorious Fed killer Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham). But the bulk of the story follows Dillinger in his troubled life, trying to balance his "work" with the love of his life, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard).

The number one reason Public Enemies fails is it's writer/director Michael Mann. As I described in my opening paragraph, Mann's choice of cinematography was a poor one. Choosing to use an HD handheld video camera, Mann probably wanted the viewer to feel as though he was standing next to John Dillinger. Instead, I felt like I was watching a cheap re-enactment put together for the History Channel. By placing the camera directly into the actor's faces, a sense of claustrophobia sets in, and it makes sitting still very difficult. If that were not bad enough, during the gunfights, understanding what is being shown to you is near impossible. The camera moved so fast and so unsteadily that I would think one character was being shot, and then later in the scene he'd appear again perfectly fine. After just a few seconds of this home video-esque style, my head began to hurt and I started to feel woozy. Throw in the fact that Mann made the gunshots as loud as a sonic boom each, and I couldn't listen to the film either. During a scene showing the famous battle of Little Bohemia, after 20 seconds I had my head buried in my chest, eyes shut, with my hands over my ears, because I was becoming so uncomfortable. My sight and sound, the two senses one needs to enjoy a film, were actually rejecting Public Enemies.

If that weren't enough, Mann's writing skills were lacking greatly as well. (Though he shares billing with 2 other people, it's easier to just write his name). Though full of slick conversation, Public Enemies just doesn't make sense at some points. For example (nothing I'm about to say is a spoiler): the first 40 minutes of the film, the FBI is looking everywhere for Dillinger, and they frequently say they have no leads. Then in the next scene, while Dillinger is in a hotel room with Frechette, the FBI busts down the door and arrests him. That's quite the magic trick Mr. Mann, but how is it done? How could it be that the FBI can go from clueless to busting down his door in a matter of one scene? Well he doesn't explain it, so keep dreaming. For all I know, they did discuss it briefly, but who knows through the mumbled voices of almost every actor in the film. Anybody who has seen a film with Christian Bale knows that he has mastered an American accent. However, the chore of speaking in a southern accent proved too great the task for him. In one of his worst performances, Bale can't quite speak clearly enough to help out the audience. As a friend of mine affectionately put it, "it was like he borrowed his accent from Foghorn Leghorn, and he forgot to use it sometimes". Couldn't have said it better myself. The starpower of Johnny Depp, who tries very hard to save this sinking ship by giving a good but forgettable performance, can't distract us from the fact this film's screenplay is awful. It is painfully slow during most scenes, and then frantically hurried in scenes where valuable information is being thrown around. No medium was ever found in the script, and so the transfer to the screen was just as bad.

Since Mann chose to "put us in the action" rather than tell us an actual story, Public Enemies was an all out failure. Even if I were to forgive the flaws of the screenplay and most of the acting, I'd still give this film a scathing review because of it's direction. It just goes to show that a cast list alone cannot make a film good. You know what I would like to see? A film based on Baby Face Nelson, played by Stephen Graham again. I felt Graham gave the best performance of the film, and I'd like to see him again in the role. That movie might be good. Public Enemies, not so much. My rating (2/10)

Se7en (1995)

Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, and pride. These are the seven deadly sins as written by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, updating the work of Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th century. These cardinal vices are said to be the seven most objectionable sins a man can commit. However, for the 15 centuries this list has been around, mankind cannot seem to abide by the rules. Millions and millions of people everyday, including myself, indulge in these sins, and feel no immediate consequences (what awaits us in the afterlife, we can never be sure). Perhaps we should look upon this as a blessing, for if everyone in the world that committed one of these sins was chastised for them at once, there would not be much of a population left today. For this, we should thank our lucky stars that we do not live in the world of Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills has just transferred to a dark, ominous, unnamed city that oozes all things evil. For his first case Mills is paired up with Detective William Somerset, the very man he is replacing, to investigate the strange murder of a morbidly obese man found with his hands and feet bound and his face down in a plate of spaghetti. When another seemingly unrelated murder is discovered, the detectives start to suspect that they are dealing with a serial killer who chooses his victims based on the seven deadly sins. With five more murders to expect, Somerset and Mills have to piece the puzzle together before they, or someone they love, gets hurt. Although the story is unique, Se7en is executed ineffectively and leaves the viewer wanting more (not in the good way).

A friend of mine once described Se7en as "if Fight Club had a baby with Saw, you would get Se7en". For the most part, this is a fairly accurate description, but don't be fooled. Mashing two really good movies together does not always create a great movie. In this case, it churns out a a very average movie that aspires to be something unforgettable. Director David Fincher, famous for Fight Club and recent Best Picture nominee The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I think he has a thing for Brad Pitt), adds his noticeable touch behind the camera, but without the strength you'd expect. Given the film's unpleasant subject matter, it would make sense for the setting to be a generic rainy city that shows no light, or no signs of hope for its inhabitants. But there is a difference between dark and pitch black, which Fincher sometimes forgets throughout the film. If he wanted to give Se7en the feeling of a film noir, he should have just gone ahead and done the entire movie in black and white. Fincher was not a bust at the position of director, but simply made some mistakes that hindered Se7en's progress. Some scenes were shot superbly, one in particular when the SWAT team and Mills and Somerset discover the victim for Sloth. This scene was one of the few that I felt truly captured the ugliness, grittiness, and severity of this created world.

Se7en may not have succeeded as a whole, but there was one moment in the film where everybody involved surpassed brilliance. The people in particular are director David Fincher, screenplay author Andrew Kevin Walker, and the casting directors of the film. I am referring to the reveal of the serial killer, aptly named John Doe. There is one scene in Walker's terrific screenplay (one of the few things of this film that was terrific) where Somerset and Mills sit at a bar discussing the situation at hand. Somerset turns to Mills and says, "If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations. But he's not the devil...he's just a man". At that point the viewer thinks this is just a message Somerset is relaying to Mills. Time passes in the film, and we reach the point when Joe Doe presents himself. Fincher sets the camera on Doe's legs and shows nothing more. The anticipation grows because you cannot wait to see who they got to play this maniacal freak. Did they get a tall, lurching actor with a booming voice and a built upper body? Is it an unknown actor done up with makeup and prosthetics to seem deformed? No, it was just...well actually, I'd prefer not to say. It ruins the surprise. But when the camera finally moves up and shows John Doe's face and you discover that it is _____ ______, you understand exactly what Somerset was talking about. This was nothing more than a plain man, one that you would see riding the subway or walking his dog. It just goes to show you that appearances can be deceiving.

Staying with the idea that appearances can be deceiving, the most disappointing aspect of Se7en was the below average acting from a stellar cast. Seeing the names Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman on the poster can trick a viewer into thinking they are watching a film with terrific acting, but alas, it is only a trick. Pitt in particular does little to really invent his character Detective David Mills. More or less, he seemed to simply recite the lines as he read them off the script. At the end of the film, when Mills is faced with a particularly difficult decision, Pitt's acting slips into near comedy as he just contorts his face trying to look emotional. He might as well have been saying, "Oh wow look at how emotional I am being right now. Don't I just look so conflicted?" No, he just looked foolish. Morgan Freeman does a better job with Detective Somerset, but still doesn't put his best foot forward. With Freeman, most of his acting in Se7en came from his countenance. Unlike Pitt, whose face is too young and smooth, Freeman exudes the feeling of a man who has spent way too much time in this unforgiving city. He is tired of the senseless crimes he is forced to investigate, and he wants out. Aside from his face, though, Freeman is a standard addition. The one performance in this film that was complete was that of the man who I'd prefer to keep unnamed, so like his character, I'll simply call him John Doe. Doe's interactions with Pitt and Somerset are truly unsettling. His calm, even voice matched with the simple face will confuse you, because you won't believe that such horrible crimes were being committed by this man. Doe's screen time is hardly enough, and I would have liked to have seen more of him.

Despite all the negatives of Se7en, I would say there are just enough positives to balance them out. But a fair warning to all of you. There are lots of disturbing, realistic images in this film that you may not enjoy. Also, if you are not a fan of depressing endings, you definitely will not enjoy this film. At 127 minutes, Se7en does lag a bit, but like I said, there are just enough positives to recommend this film. My rating (6/10)

Crank (2006)

Do you ever feel like you just need a break from the world? Do you ever just want to leave and go to a place where things don't make sense, and nobody questions it? Do you want to see a man inject himself with an overdose of Epinephren and then go on an adrenaline fueled rampage through an entire city? If you answered yes to all of those questions, I have the perfect remedy to feed your need for senseless violence. Crank is a film so out of the realm of realism that your brain may freeze from all of the impossibilities. Jason Statham, a name synonymous with "awesome", stars as Chev Chelios, a professional hit man who has run into a problem. A rival killer has injected him with a mysterious poison that will kill him if he lets his adrenaline drop too low. Set on getting revenge before he dies, Chelios does whatever he can - driving through a mall, Epinephren shots, sex in public, the usual - to keep his heart racing. But don't worry about the plot. The plot is completely irrelevant. Crank is chock full of amateur camerawork, horrific writing, dismal acting, and overall inconceivabilities...but damn is it a good time.

It is pointless to discuss the technical aspects of a film such as Crank. It would be like trying to find a new perfume fragrance at a farm. You can try all you want, but you won't be happy with what you find. What Crank offers you is an exhilerating thrill that never ceases to be ridiculous. Rookie writers/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor be sure to never lead us on to thinking this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that is why it is such a success. Although their directing repertoire consists of only shaking cameras, poor CGI, and countless jump cuts, they keep the action going and actually make Crank watchable. Plus, it always helps to have the number one tough guy in Hollywood today headlining your film. It could be said that Neveldine and Taylor have created the perfect men's movie: violence, sex, violence, loud noises, Jason Statham, and violence. Deep down, I think even the most refined man secretly wants to see a guy cut off another mans hand that was holding a gun, and then pick up the hand with the gun still gripped in it, and shoot the man with the gun with his own finger on the trigger. Not in real life, of course. That would be disturbing if it was real.

Much like Jean Claude Van Damme and Sylvestor Stallone before him, Jason Statham has made a name for himself in the world of over the top action flicks. This olympic diver turned archetypical Hollywood bad-ass first made his mark on the action world back in 2002 with The Transporter, and he has yet to lose his touch. In Crank, Statham simply does what he does best, and that is beat people senseless all while talking in that guttural, rough voice. Like his movies before this one, we are basically treated to The Jason Statham Show, because it is his mere presence that keeps us wanting to watch more. Crank is essentially just the next movie in a long series of films that I call Jason Statham Beats The Crap Out of People. Since this movie came out in 2006, he has starred in four more action films, and has five in development credits, one of which is a sequel to Crank. Statham is a man in high demand, and why not? Men want to be him, and according to my girlfriend, women definitely want to be with him. There are a few co-stars in this film, but they really don't matter. Amy Smart seemed like she was wandering around some movie sets, seeing if anybody needed a part filled, and they just grabbed her and tacked her in here. She only had about 12 lines in the entire film, and I probably could have delivered them better.

Chances are that if you want to watch Crank, you do not care about who is in it, how well they did, how the story is, or who directed it. You just want to know if this film is going to excite you and make you feel the rush you crave. The answer is a resounding "YES!". At a quick 87 minutes, you have just enough time to enjoy your energy high without crashing from an overdrawn story. Crank does not take itself seriously, and offers quite a few laughs that should keep you happy too. Who ever said that a movie has to be good, to be good? My rating (7/10)

Tropic Thunder: A Second Look

If you have not read my first review of Tropic Thunder please go to August 2008 in my archive.

The summer of 2008 was a great season for comic book films. Not only did every single superhero flick flourish at the box office, but most of them received critical praise as well (with the exception of Hancock). With all that success revolving around action films, the summer really needed a comedy to round itself off and make it a truly memorable one. Late in August, I reported that Tropic Thunder was the film that fulfilled that need. I mentioned how the performances of Robert Downey Jr, Tom Cruise, and Brandon T. Jackson saved the film from it's somewhat flimsy story. The Academy went as far as to nominate Downey Jr for Best Actor in a Supporting Role as the 81st Oscar ceremony. Even now, I feel this nomination was well deserved as Downey Jr really nailed that role down to a T. Tom Cruise also received a Golden Globe nomination with Downey Jr for Supporting Actor in a Comedy, which was a bit much, but after all, it's just the Golden Globes. Either way, it was not just me that felt some of the performances in Tropic Thunder were praiseworthy.

Last month, I finally bought Tropic Thunder hoping it would be just as funny the next few times around, and I was a little disappointed. Not a significant amount, but there was a definite letdown. All of the performances I once praised were still great and I feel like I will always give them high marks. Downey Jr was just as brilliant to watch the second time as he was the first. Cruise's foul mouthed movie executive Les Grossman was still an outrageous character that provided lots of laughs and that little extra bit of satire. However, all of the negative aspects of the film that I pointed out in my first review became much more evident and harder to avoid this second time around. The problem with comedies is that there are very few of them that have the ability to last. A joke that could have you rolling in stitches the first time you hear it may not even coerce a chuckle out of you the second time. In Tropic Thunder, I remembered most of the jokes of the film, and Downey Jr's performance, although still terrific, was less surprising as the first time. So sadly, there wasn't much opportunity for me to laugh out loud during my second viewing of this film. Instead, I kept noticing how Ben Stiller and Jack Black were uncharacteristically bland and one dimensional. I really noticed how it took the film a very long time to get rolling out of the starting gate. When I saw it in theaters I noticed this as well, but not to this extent.

Tropic Thunder was no one hit wonder though, and I don't mean to imply that. Even on second viewing there were numerous laugh out loud moments and once again, great performances. The biting satire commenting on why actors make some decisions in their career is scarily accurate and still a potent theme. And since the direction can't change from one viewing to the next (only the way you view the direction can differ), the action sequences were still well put together with the perfect blend of violence and comedy. So although it may not be the ideal comedy that will live on forever, and it will probably do nothing else but diminish even more over time, Tropic Thunder is still a good experience, although less of one than I originally thought. My new rating: (6.5/10)

RocknRolla (2008)

So what is a Rock-n-Rolla? The marketing campaign for this film circulated this question through every possible medium, causing a terrible case of "annoying fake British accents" amongst our friends and family (a condition similar to "Borat-itis"). Before RocknRolla was even released, people were buzzing with fake British enthusiasm to find the answer to this question. However, when the film was finally released, we discovered people didn't so much care about finding the true meaning of a "Rock-n-Rolla" as much as they did masquerading as a British person. This is evidenced by the fact that RocknRolla only made about $6 million and never broke into the top 10 at the box office. Even I, who was a fan of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, didn't bother seeing this film. It's a good thing I didn't waste my money. RocknRolla tries to be as fun and charismatic as its predecessors, but falls into a veritable mine field of movie faux pas.

RocknRolla is not a sequel as I may have led on, but simply a film in the same vein as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. After deviating from the "multiple storyline" gimmick since 2000, writer/director Guy Ritchie returns to the form that made him famous for his latest film. Sadly, the eight year break seems to have gotten to Ritchie and he was unable to bring himself back to his heyday. RocknRolla loosely revolves around Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson), the self-proclaimed King of the Old School who runs most of London. Lenny is currently trying to make a deal with some local Russians, and as a token of affection Russian head Uri Omovich (Karal Roden) allows him to hold on to his lucky painting. To Lenny's dismay, the painting is stolen from his home by his estranged son, rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell). While he searches for his junkie offspring, Lenny and his confidant Archie (Mark Strong) must also keep relations with the Russians running smoothly, keeping it a secret that he lost Uri's beloved painting. Unfortunately, tensions rise as the shipment of money between the two parties continually gets stolen by One-Two and Mumbles (Gerard Butler and Idris Elba), two crooks who were tipped off by shifty accountant Stella (Thandie Newton). As the story progresses, everyone's world begins to fold into everyone else's, meeting at an end that was more of a whimper than a bang. Much less cohesive and interesting than his previous efforts, Ritchie wastes his opportunity at a comeback on this scrap heap.

To some degree, RocknRolla is a pretty film. Not in terms of the events sprawled out on the screen, but rather in how Ritchie and cinematographer David Higgs show what is being done. The use of somewhat dirty coloring conveys the grimy feel of the world these no good characters are living in. Ritchie also sometimes redeems himself with a clever filming style, specifically in one scene as One-Two and his partner Mumbles are being chased down by some unstoppable Russians. The rest of the film however, is a total loss and an incomprehensible mess. The smash-bang execution that Ritchie perfected in Snatch was obviously short-lived, as was his ability to spin an engaging story from his mental yarn. The mostly central story following the whereabouts of a missing painting is hardly enough to keep the viewers eyes forward. Even a ten year old who just drank seven Red Bulls would start to get bored. Ritchie fails to create a single memorable character from his basic, bland script. Even as I'm writing this, I frequently have to visit the IMDb page of this film to remind myself of the character's names. I can't even remember if Stella, the accountant, worked for Lenny, Uri, both, or neither. You could say that this is no more than the fault of my own memory, but I argue that Ritchie didn't do a good enough job to plant these faces in my head as he did in Snatch.

In both of Ritchie's previous multi-story films, the plot is driven by a maniacal kingpin who has "commoners" groveling for mercy. In RocknRolla, this role is stepped into by two time Oscar nominee Tom Wilkinson, a consistently impressive actor that most recently knocked me out with his portrayal of Benjamin Franklin in the HBO mini-series "John Adams". To my chagrin, Wilkinson brings the biggest disappointment of the film in the form of his surprisingly weak performance. An intimidating kingpin Tom Wilkinson does not make, so much as a man who is just a jerk. The characters in RocknRolla may have feared Lenny Cole, but that is just because the script told them to. As a viewer, I was as daunted by Cole as I would be of a Pomeranian with a mean streak. In Snatch, Ritchie created a villain that truly induced fear and with the perfect performance of Alan Ford, the character Brick Top was one to remember. Lenny Cole is a boring scoundrel with no lasting power. Even Cole's growing opponent Uri was portrayed in a rather tame manner. With the exception of one scene that shows his power, Karal Roden never gets the opportunity to show how devilish his character is. The supporting performances from the entire cast, including Thandie Newton, Gerard Butler, Jeremy Piven, Mark Strong, and Ludacris, are all nothing but exercises in mediocrity. The only showing anywhere close to being worthy of celebration is Toby Kebbell's drugged out, hyper-violent, comically apathetic Johnny Quid. His character's farcical behavior gives RocknRolla a slight ray of sunshine in an otherwise dank cave. However, his talents are grossly under-utilized and for most of the movie we are subject to the flat stories of the other characters.

RocknRolla could have had a place on my DVD shelf for years to come right next to Ritchie's other accomplishment's, but instead I will never have it enter my home again. It's unnecessary length is the final straw, closing in on two hours. Snatch was by no means short and was only ten minutes shorter than RocknRolla, but it was at least filled with things to appreciate. If you want to watch a caper flick that's fast paced and highly satisfying, watch Snatch. If you want to watched a caper flick that tries to be quick but instead gets bogged down by it's stale story, watch RocknRolla. My rating (3/10)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum - (n) a particular amount (adj) sudden and significant

Solace - (n) alleviation or comfort

Quantum of Solace - (?) Absolutely meaningless. Not explained through any medium, specifically the 2008 film Quantum of Solace.

Bond is back and he's...not as good as he should have been in yet another 007 film. Quantum of Solace marks the 22nd official James Bond film of the EON Productions franchise, the 25th James Bond film of all time, and only the 2nd James Bond movie I've ever seen. Although Ian Fleming's character is not my cup of tea, I do know what to expect from the man. As I sat down to watch Quantum of Solace I nestled myself into my chair and waited to be astounded by the gadgets and fancy cars that make Bond so recognizable. What I received was a poorly filmed, sloppily scripted, decently acted hodge-podge that did not capture the spirit of a James Bond film at all. Being only somewhat entertained by 2006's hugely successful Casino Royale, I was surprised to find that I actually prefer that film over this one. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, with only a 20 minute gap between the films. The plot to this film is nearly incomprehensible. I actually had to check the internet for a plot synopsis when I got home to make sure I wouldn't make a mistake in my review. According to Wikipedia, the film follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) as he tries to prevent a group called the "Quantum" from executing a coup d'etat in the country of Brazil. His main focus is on Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an "environmentalist" who seems to be spearheading the whole operation. Helping Bond in his fight is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman whose family was killed by the very man attempting to take power in Brazil. At the same time, Bond is also seeking revenge for the death of the only woman he ever loved, Vesper Lynd. (This plot synopsis took me a week and a half to write, mainly because I had a lot of trouble putting it into words that were understandable. It's not my best work, but it'll do.)

There are not many good things to say about Quantum of Solace. Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade all returned as writers for this film, but failed to live up to the precedent set by their previous work on Casino Royale. They created a lackadaisical script that doesn't explain itself very well, and was far too reliant on the first film. It is understandable that a sequel will use the original film as a jumping off point, but you would need to watch Casino Royale immediately before watching this film to get anything! If you've never seen the first film and you plan on watching Quantum, good luck. These writers also abandoned the use of plot development for this film, turning it into an hour and 45 minute marathon of explosions. One of the few things I enjoyed about Casino Royale was that it followed a well thought out script and centered on characters that you learned a lot about. Quantum of Solace gives no backstory to many of the characters, leaving you in the dark when it comes to actually caring about what happens. The shift in director could also be to blame for the mediocre downslope the franchise took in just 2 movies. Marc Foster took the reigns from Martin Campbell, and I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to give them back. Quantum of Solace is the first action film to hit Foster's resume which is comprised of serious pictures such as The Kite Runner and Monster's Ball. From this, it is no wonder Foster seemed out of his element helming a James Bond film. His camera work was utterly dreadful in even the simplest shot. Every action sequence looked as though the man holding the camera was having a seizure. Foster also manages to take all of the intensity and anticipation out of a long awaited film that should have kept the audiences heart's racing. Quantum offers no build up to a final resolution, and the showdown between Bond and Greene was so lackluster that I didn't even realize it was the final showdown until the movie ended five minutes later.

If there is a positive thing to say about Quantum of Solace, it is that Daniel Craig is just as dynamic as he was in Casino Royale as the suave super agent James Bond. His performance alone keeps this film out of the dollar movie bin at Stop & Shop. His dedication to the role actually had me believing it is that easy to be entangled in a series of ropes yet still have the ability to accurately shoot a gun. Sadly, not many of the people around Craig were very convincing. Olga Kurylenko, whose most recent films include Max Payne and Hitman, pretty much lives up to her resume in her role as Bond girl Camille. A flat performance topped off by an inability to understand a word she says really doesn't do much to make the film respectable. In some scenes, Kurylenko's character discusses some grim memories of her family being killed. An actress of higher caliber would have been able to make this monologue memorable, but instead I was left straining my ears, struggling to comprehend the words that were heavily coated in a thick accent. Mathieu Amalric is not bad playing the villain Dominic Greene and is sometimes very engaging. But a one dimensional character makes his villain a forgettable and fruitless minor inconvenience.

Quantum of Solace is (mercifully) the shortest Bond film in the franchise, and I believe that may have been a disadvantage to the film. Perhaps the writers were afraid they would lose the audiences attention if they made the film too long. Whatever the reason, added length could have given Quantum of Solace the honor of being told properly with much more development. But it is futile to sit here pondering "what if's" and I must talk about the film for what it was. With only one and a half good performances, Quantum of Solace is nothing more than a a brief itch that once scratched is gone from your mind for the rest of your life. My rating (3/10)

Tropic Thunder (2008)

August is drawing to a close, which means schools are re-opening, pools are closing, and movie companies start releasing Oscar hopeful films rather than blockbusters. But before the summer of 2008 disappears forever, one more movie attempts to right something that has been wrong. In a summer movie season filled with superhero flicks and other random action films, we have yet to receive a comedy that will have us rolling in the aisles. Tropic Thunder, a passion project Ben Stiller has been working on for years, will not make you fall out of your chair, but is however the funniest film of the summer. On the set of the most expensive war movie ever made, rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) is having trouble keeping his narcissistic cast in check. Just 5 days into shooting, production is already 1 month behind. Action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is having trouble recovering from his recent film Simple Jack, which was a box office flop and was bashed by critics. 5 time Academy Award winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), an Australian actor, underwent a procedure to darken his skin so that he could play the African American platoon leader called for in the script. Fart joke comedian Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is trying to break the mold of gross out comedy, but has trouble keeping his mind during filming because of his drug addiction. After being violently screamed at by movie executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise like you've never seen him before), director Damien desperately takes advice from Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), the war veteran that wrote the book from which the movie is based. Tayback suggests that in order to get real emotion and an authentic feel, the cast should be dropped in the middle of the Vietnam forest where some controlled explosions and gunfire will challenge them. But no more than 5 minutes after they land, the cast is thrust into a real war zone with Vietnamese drug lords...they just don't realize it. When Tugg Speedman is kidnapped, Kirk, Jeff, rapper turned actor Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson), and newcomer Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel) must save their comrade from certain death. If you have seen commercials for Tropic Thunder, you probably don't think it looks very funny. Do not be fooled. Tropic Thunder is very funny and at some times hilarious, and has lots of fun action to satisfy your needs.

Just last week, Judd Apatow attempted to blur the genres of action and comedy together in Pineapple Express, but didn't succeed to the fullest extent. The trouble was his film had too many sagging points. Ben Stiller, who wrote and directed Tropic Thunder, made sure to add as many jokes as possible to keep things funny. This can be a very risky technique, as we've seen in You Don't Mess With the Zohan, where Adam Sandler crammed jokes into every orifice of that film but didn't land any hits making it unbearable to watch. Tropic Thunder has its share of misses, but not nearly enough to make the film droop. When jokes did hit in Tropic Thunder, much like Pineapple Express, it was hilarious. What makes Tropic Thunder better is the fact that is was continuously funny. There were less gaps in the comedy. Stiller did the correct thing in not letting the action overtake the film, and even during the action sequences the comedy never ceased. He also filmed everything very tastefully, not really glorifying the bloody part of fighting. Keeping in line with the rest of the film, Stiller kept things funny. Before the film even begins, we are treated to a series of hysterical fake advertisements and movie trailers starring the characters from the film. Once the film starts, show patience, as the first 15 minutes aren't particularly interesting. After you make it over that hump, Tropic Thunder becomes roaringly funny and endlessly entertaining.

What makes Tropic Thunder an above average comedy is some of the terrific performances displayed in it. One person who does not give one of those performances is Ben Stiller. His character Tugg Speedman is after all a slow witted tough guy, but he is actually the straight man in this film. Tugg is also a bit annoying because he took way too long to figure out that his kidnapping was not part of the film. Nobody can be that stupid. Providing few jokes (even fewer that are actually funny), one wonders why Stiller didn't write himself some better material. Another lackluster performance was that of Jack Black as Jeff Portnoy. Black is a rambunctious comedy actor, but his role is too small to allow him to show any type of range. His drug addiction is pretty much the only joke he delivers, and it isn't even that funny. The one exception being when he is tied to a tree and he says something that is just awful and hilarious. One of the better performances in Tropic Thunder is given by Brandon T. Jackson as the rapper who endorses a drink called Booty Sweat and a candy bar called Bust-a-Nut. Surprisingly, I found him very entertaining to watch and he had quite a few laugh out loud moments in the film, specifically in his interactions with Downey Jr. In a role that you would probably never have imagined him in, Tom Cruise has been earning praise as a show stealer as Les Grossman. I wouldn't call him a show stealer, but Cruise's over the top potty mouth performance was quite enjoyable and very uncharacteristic of him, which made it even funnier. Also a surprise, Matthew McConaughey randomly takes a supporting role as Tugg Speedman's agent Rick Peck. The role originally was meant for Owen Wilson, but he was forced to drop the film after his attempted suicide last year. McConaughey isn't exactly what I would call a "good" actor, but his concern for his client provided some extra laughs and probably McConaughey's best performance of his career. (That is not saying much). But the man who completely ran away with this movie is Robert Downey Jr. I'm sure when 2008 began, he had no idea how much of a household name he would become at years end. Playing an Australian actor that is playing a black man, Downey Jr steals every scene and delivers every line with consistent hilarity. The role of Kirk Lazarus was written to explore and make fun of how actors immerse themselves into roles, and Downey Jr perfectly exemplifies this...by immersing himself into the role. He created a character that was extremely hilarious without being racist or offensive. Every character in the film had a stale line or two (Stiller had a lot of those), but not Downey Jr. He hits the right note every time, taking comedy through a whole new frontier.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the release of Tropic Thunder. Protests from groups supporting those with disabilities have plagued the film and no doubt had an effect on its weekend gross. (The film only took in about 26 million, it deserved much more). People are outraged over the use of the word "retard" in the film. They feel it is demeaning to all people with mental disabilities. Now that I have seen this movie, I can say without question that this film in no way offends mentally handicapped people. As somebody with a relative who has down syndrome, I did not feel angered by their use of the word retard. I laughed the entire scene. The word retard in the film is not used in a derogatory sense. Nobody says "You are a retard" or "That was retarded of you". That would be offensive because the line would be meant to be insulting to the person hearing it. Instead, Tugg Speedman and Kirk Lazarus discuss Tugg's role in his film Simple Jack, in which he did play a retard. (Notice how I have no problem using the word, because I am not using it to offend anybody). The whole purpose of the joke is to make fun of how actors will take on roles as handicapped people because they are hoping to get an award from it. The scene was actually extremely clever-minded and witty as Kirk explains to Tugg that there is a certain level of retardation you have to play to get an award, and that there is a certain point that can't be crossed. That joke is not aimed at retarded people, but at the actors who take advantage of the roles of retarded people. Honestly, I do not think you will be offended by this scene unless you are extremely overly sensitive. If Al Sharpton didn't freak out because a white actor was playing a black role, you probably won't freak out from the use of the word retard.

Tropic Thunder might not be every one's cup of tea, but it happened to be mine. Even with a slow first 15 minutes and the weak performance by Stiller, Tropic Thunder is the summer comedy we have been waiting for. At 107 minutes, time is not really a factor because you will spend most of it laughing. Ignore the bad press for this film caused by those disability groups and head to the movies for a good time. I have a feeling you will not be disappointed. I also feel that Robert Downey Jr. should be nominated for some type of award. Maybe not an Oscar, because that's a little extreme. Something less important, like a Golden Globe. It just doesn't seem right that his performance goes unrewarded. It was so perfect. My rating (7.5/10)

Pineapple Express (2008)

It seems that every few months another film written by the Judd Apatow gang surfaces and tries to breathe life into the comedy industry. In the past, any film with the Apatow Productions sticker attached to it has more often than not been a success. Whether taking on a middle aged virgin, two booze seeking best friends, or an accidental pregnancy after a drunken night, Judd Apatow has consistently proven to be a comedic genius that also has a lot of heart. Naturally, given this track record, I was very excited for the release of his most recent film, Pineapple Express. Trailers and commercials did even more to pique my interest. Entering the theater, I was all set to begin enjoying what should have been the funniest film I would see all year. Sadly, it was not. Pineapple Express chronicles the unfortunate tale of frequently stoned process server Dale Denton (Seth Rogen). After witnessing a murder committed by a policewoman (Rosie Perez) and the later identified drug lord Ted Jones (Gary Cole), Dale seeks refuge with the first person he can think of: his drug dealer Saul (James Franco). Ted, who mistakenly identifies Dale as a hitman from a rival Chinese gang, sends his best men to kill the two stoners forcing them to go on the run. With the help of Saul's friend Red (Danny McBride), the pair must fight fire with fire to save their lives, so they may smoke weed another day.

As somebody who does not smoke weed, drink alcohol, or do any kind of drug at all, maybe I missed something while watching Pineapple Express. Perhaps it would have helped to be stoned so that I could enjoy it more. But if a movie requires you to be stoned to fully appreciate it, then it's not that great of a movie. I could only speculate as to how marijuana makes you feel, but I imagine it is a lot like watching this film. When you are doing it (watching the film) you feel great and are having a good time, but once you come down from your high (exit the theater) you don't really remember much of what happened. Normally after watching a comedy with my friends, in the parking lot we will repeat jokes that we liked from the film so that we can renew the experience. Dead silent is the only term I can use to describe the walk out of the theater with my girlfriend. Neither of us could remember a single joke. I even had trouble remembering what the final scene in the movie was. I do recall that when Pineapple Express was funny, it was hysterical. But when it was not funny, it was dead, and there were a lot of points that were devoid of laughter. Judd Apatow's films usually do have a sagging point, but often bounce back by the end. Pineapple Express falls into a pit and spends the rest of the film trying desperately to climb back up from the depths of mediocrity. In the end it succeeded, but the line is very thin.

Aside from being a comedy, Pineapple Express is a heavily violent action film. Executed properly, Pineapple Express had potential to be a terrific summer flick. But the far from mainstream director David Gordon Green could not handle the new world of an absurd action comedy. Since the comedic portion of the film heavily relies on the actors abilities, I can only really comment on Green's ability to stage an over the top brawl. Put simply, he isn't particularly cut out for it. In some cases however, he did show professionalism and a good eye for comedy. In a scene where Saul and Dale steal a police car and are being chased by the corrupt policewoman, Green effectively mixes thrilling action with genuine humor. On the other hand, Green falters at creating an extravagant final showdown. The epic battle between rival drug factions and the stoners is poorly shot and beyond belief in some cases. In a different film like Wanted or Shoot 'Em Up, I forgive unbelievable and physically impossible events. But Pineapple Express was primarily a film grounded in reality for practically the entire duration. In the end, it was reduced to Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff but his feet are still moving. The only difference being those old Wile E. Coyote episodes were pretty funny. Green dropped the comedic ball completely and instead provided a third rate fight sequence with first rate special effects. For a first attempt at a wide release film, Green fell short.

Seth Rogen is a rising force in comedy, breaking through with the hits Knocked Up and Superbad and now has 5 in development credits on IMDb.com, including the leading role in a superhero film entitled The Green Hornet. Personally I am a fan of Rogen, and I hope he continues to be successful in Hollywood. But in Pineapple Express, Rogen is uncharacteristically weak in both his writing of the film and his performance. Sharing a pen with lifelong buddy Evan Goldberg (who he also wrote Superbad with), Rogen doesn't bring the sincerity that has made most of Apatow Productions in the past unique. He also doesn't create a character that is particularly likable. Although Dale is a very funny person, he has a girlfriend that is in high school. What is up with that? That's not funny, that's pedophilia. Actually they say she is 18, so I guess that is supposed to make it better. It still doesn't sit right with me. Aside from the fact that he is an irresponsible stoner and borderline pedophile, Dale is still pretty funny to watch thanks to Rogen. But the ray of light in Pineapple Express is without a doubt James Franco as the permanently stoned Saul Silver. Clad in a headband and pajama bottoms, Franco steals the movie right out from under the feet of the rest of the cast. I haven't been a fan of Franco's past work (especially his role as "the smiling idiot" in Spiderman 3), but Pineapple Express has changed my opinion of the kind of actor he is. He showed a terrific aptitude in creating laughter from every situation. Danny McBride provided intermittent comedy in his supporting role as Red. Once again though, much like Dale's character, Red is a bit of a jerk. By the end of the film he redeems himself by providing my personal favorite line from the film, "You just got killed by a Daewoo Lanos!" It's funnier in context. Gary Cole is a bit of a miscast as the sinister drug lord Ted Jones. I couldn't really get into his performance. He was about as intimidating as a Dachshund.

Pineapple Express isn't terribly long, but at some points you will begin checking your watch to see how much is left. The movie as a whole is a mixed bag that is full of funny performances but a lagging storyline and mostly poorly shot action sequences. If you plan on riding the express, be prepared to have a mild sense of disappointment and also the inability to remember anything you just saw. Although the experience won't stick with you, it gives you just enough fun while you are watching it to earn a mild recommendation from me. My rating (a disappointing 6/10)

The Dark Knight (2008)

Up to this point, the summer of 2008 has been the summer of great comic book movies. The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy were both great fun, and Iron Man brought us the best superhero movie since Batman Begins. Well I hope Iron Man enjoyed it's time on top, because The Dark Knight has come and left every single one of those films in the dust. I'm somewhat afraid that with this review I will be unable to fully convey how spectacular this movie was. Christian Bale, a man that has time and again proved himself to be an amazing actor (American Psycho, The Prestige, 3:10 To Yuma) returns as the caped crusader, who seems to have fallen out of favor with the public. Ever since he has began patrolling the streets of Gotham, the crime rate has soared, and a new breed of criminal seems to have been born. Batman, who cannot fight injustice alone, takes up support of new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent has become a beacon of light for Gotham, vowing to be a "white knight" and make the street's safe again. His campaign could not come soon enough, as a new villain emerges from the depths of Gotham to play games with its inhabitants. This individual is The Joker (Heath Ledger), a man who simply came from nowhere to challenge Batman to see how far he was willing to go to stop a madman. At every turn, The Joker makes another move that is completely unexpected and always catastrophic. Unconcerned about what happens to him, this green and purple freak will do anything to cause chaos, and to push Batman to his limits to see how moral of a hero he really is. While Batman has his own set of problems, billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne must deal with the fact that he has lost the love of his life Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) to the very man he is supporting, Harvey Dent. The Dark Knight is not only the best superhero movie ever made, but one of the best crime dramas ever put on film, and should be considered for a Best Picture Oscar.

Everything works in The Dark Knight. There is not a single weak link in the chain. Christopher Nolan, the man behind one of my personal favorite films Memento, does an outstanding job of handling this material. He has created a city that has descended into disorder and desperation. Gotham is unforgiving and the people that dwell there are just as harsh. They would have to be in order to survive. Even though this city has fallen to corruption and crime, Nolan does a tasteful job of not exploiting that fact to a point beyond where anybody can appreciate it. His focus lies on the conflicts of Bruce Wayne and the rise of the evil Joker. He presents us with the question of how far should anybody be willing to go to protect what they believe is right. Nolan also accomplishes the feat of tackling multiple storylines without becoming jumbled and confusing. The movie slides easily from scene to scene, changing directions but always remaining focused. Some excellent cinematography helps to ease the viewer into each scene without jarring them, but also without dragging them in kicking and screaming. The action in The Dark Knight is without a doubt heart racing, adrenaline pumping fun that doesn't get too bogged down in its scale. Although not without its share of CGI, Nolan only uses it whenever is absolutely necessary and doesn't turn this epic crime drama into a third rate superhero flick. That's right, I don't even consider this film a superhero film. It packs the punch of an excellent action film, but also is an enthralling exploration of the unending battle between good and evil, right and wrong. Nolan is at the top of his game with The Dark Knight, as he somehow manages to surpass his masterpiece Memento. I guess that would make The Dark Knight a....super masterpiece?

Direction alone cannot make a movie brilliant, though. One needs a cast that can take a script and turn it into a something real. In other words, take a fictional story but make the audience believe it's true. To say the all star cast of The Dark Knight did that would be an understatement. Christian Bale is the most intimidating Batman and the most arrogant Bruce Wayne in the history of the franchise. His struggles and battles that he must face as both Wayne and Batman are all exemplified perfectly, bringing the viewer into his head to feel exactly what he feels. His struggle to maintain composure in the face of the insane Joker shows us all that everyone has a breaking point, even people masquerading as a bat. Bale's versatility as an actor really permeates through to the audience in every movie he does. You can also feel Bruce's heartache as he loses Rachel to Harvey. Aaron Eckhart gives a top notch performance as righteous Harvey Dent, the man who wants to clean up Gotham without wearing a mask. As Dent, Eckhart is a delight to watch as he spreads his ordeals and stands up to the injustices of his city. When Dent unavoidably becomes Two-Face (that's not really a spoiler, so don't be upset), his fight for what is right becomes a flawed mission as he turns to vigilantism himself. Using the flip of a coin to decide whether someone lives or dies, Harvey "Two-Face" Dent is a depressing reminder that everyone is corruptable. Echkart's performance is definitely note-worthy, but unfortunately he will most likely be overshadowed by another performance (Hint: It's not Maggie Gyllenhaal). In Batman Begins, Rachel Dawes was played plainly and unenthusiastically by Katie Holmes. Well in The Dark Knight, since everything else was better, Holmes was swapped out for an upgrade, but not too much of an upgrade to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal brings us a much more convincing performance as the one woman in Gotham to know Batman's true identity, and the agony that comes with that knowledge is detectable on her face. Although her character is in love with Harvey, anytime she is near Bruce you can sense desire between both parties.

But you probably don't care about Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance. Chances are if you care about this movie, there is only one person you really want to hear about. That is the late Heath Ledger, who portrays the dysfunctional Joker. Ledger has brought forth the most frightening and deranged villain since Hannibal Lector. The way he so completely became this role, creating strange mannerisms and tics, makes you believe that there is not even an actor playing this man, and that he truly exists. The paint on his face that is often a runny mess symbolizes the insanity lying beneath that face, and how utterly diabolic his mind works. Christopher Nolan does not give a backstory to the Joker either. He has no identification, his fingerprints are unique, his DNA has no matches, he has no discernible origin whatsoever. He is genuinely an entity that was born from the presence of Batman. In a few memorable scenes, the Joker explains how the scars on his face came to be, but the story changes each time. This could simply be a part of his insanity, or maybe it is a sign that not even the Joker himself can remember who he was before Batman. Ledger is absolutely phenomenal as this unprecedented character, stealing every scene that he is in. His actions and words hypnotize you so that you cannot help but be scared. It would be downright foolish to not nominate him for Best Supporting Actor. Now some people might be saying "Oh well you are just saying this because he died and it's sympathy for him that everyone is giving him this praise". Well I'll tell you right now that what happened to Heath Ledger in real life is completely irrelevant. As I watched The Dark Knight, I didn't even see Heath Ledger. I saw the Joker.

Whenever I review a film and give it a high grade, I always consider that it is just my opinion and that there are probably many people who dislike the movies that I give tens. People could find No Country For Old Men boring and I understand that. People could find A Clockwork Orange too controversial and inappropriate and I understand that. People could find The Shining too slow and I understand that. But not this film. I find it hard to believe that anybody could completely dislike The Dark Knight. Yes the movie is dark and it has a very bleak message, but Batman is a dark comic book. That is the way it should be. The way it was meant to be. Length is not an issue with this film, despite a run time of 2 and a half hours. I promise you it will fly by, and you may even want it to last longer just like I did. With not a single flaw (except maybe some improbable forensic software), I am obligated to give this film the highest rating possible. With a movie this captivating, the sad question is asked: How will they top it? My rating: (10/10)

This review is dedicated to the memory of Christopher Nowak.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

The year of the comic book continues with Guillermo Del Toro's Hellboy II: The Golden Army. If you have seen a film by Del Toro in the past, you probably know that the man's imagination is only exceeded by his belly. Perhaps it was his wild imagination that got this sequel greenlit, considering the fact that 2004's Hellboy only grossed a little above $55 million domestically. No matter how he managed to do it, I am glad he did. Hellboy II is a step up from its predecessor in every way. At the beginning of the film, we are told the story of the golden army by Professor Broom (John Hurt) to a teenage Hellboy. Long ago, humans and beasts roamed the earth together. But the humans, unhappy with living with trolls I guess, started a war against those beasts and ended up winning the first battle. Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) was deeply enraged by this, and when the offer arose, the Prince convinced his father to build a golden army to teach the humans a lesson. To control the army, a gold crown was created to be worn by the King. After a brutal slaying, King Balor, riddled with regret, created a truce with the humans and divided the crown into 3 pieces. Prince Nuada, ashamed by his father's actions, went into exile, waiting for the moment he could make everything right. Now it is present day and Nuada returns to reclaim what was his, and the only people that can stop him are the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense. Our familiar friends Hellboy, Liz, and Abe (Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, and Doug Jones) get the call to stop the Prince before he destroys all of mankind. With the help of new team leader Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane), the team investigates an underground world of unimaginable creatures, protecting people that don't seem to want protecting.

More than anything, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a visual feast, or rather, a visual all you can eat buffet. Director Guillermo Del Toro's creativity is exhibited in the forms of monsters who are hideous yet at the same time beautiful. In a scene where the Bureau members walk through a troll market, I was left astounded by the brilliant variety of ghouls that Del Toro has served up for us in this magnificent display. Del Toro must have been running the makeup team ragged with his wild imagination. On that note, Hellboy II is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination for Best Makeup. Attention to detail and consistent diversity amongst the creatures makes the film a never ending source of magic and whimsy. Del Toro's love for the characters and their world shines through with unyielding brightness. Aside from the stunning landscapes and creatures, Del Toro also paces the film very well, not allowing the film to crumble under its own weight. Once you make it past the cheesy, cornballish first 15 minutes or so, entertainment ensues for the remaining 95.

When you are covered with makeup and prosthetics, it can be difficult to fully convey emotions and actions properly. The actors in Hellboy II do a very good job of making their costumes complete non factors in their performances. Watching a group of abnormal beings portray familiar human emotions, such as love and shame, makes you forget that Hellboy has the right hand of doom and that Abe is essentially a talking fish. All you recognize is how similar to us these misunderstood creatures are. Ron Perlman is great as the gruff, rebellious Hellboy. His ability to maintain an intimidating exterior while cracking jokes and smoking cigars makes Hellboy a likeable character despite his "lone wolf" ideals. Unlike recent superhero flick Hancock, Hellboy succeeds in combining humor and drama because it doesn't lay it on too thick. Earlier in his career, Perlman donned excessive makeup for his role as Vincent in television series Beauty and the Beast. This experience most likely made playing Hellboy somewhat familiar to Perlman, and it really shows in this film. Hellboy's relationship with Liz is a recognizable one, reminding me of a normal couple dealing with normal problems. The actors really do a terrific job of making you sympathize with the characters as you would another person. Another man who is no stranger to prosthetics, Doug Jones reprises his role as the all knowing amphibious being Abe Sapien. In the first Hellboy, David Hyde Pierce provided the voice of Abe but refused crediting because he felt that Jones really did all the work. Pierce pretty much hit the nail on the head. In Hellboy II, Jones does even more work providing his own voice and the difference is practically negligible. What makes Abe such an interesting character are his mannerisms and his impressive ability to know EVERYTHING. Since the latter characteristic is uncontrollable, Jones had to make this weird fish man a delight to see on screen, and he does. We also get to see the romantic side of Abe when he falls in love with the enemies sister. Forbidden love is always awesome (and in this case hilarious). My absolute favorite part of this film was new character Johann Krauss, the team's new leader that was called in to watch over Hellboy. Krauss was played by 3 different people: James Dodd, John Alexander, and Seth MacFarlane. Addressing the work done by MacFarlane, I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that the creator of Family Guy, the man who does the voice of Peter Griffin, was in Hellboy II as a German ectoplasmic scientist. He also did a great job of matching the voice with the motions of Krauss, that were acted out by either Dodd or Alexander. A thoroughly entertaining character, Krauss' level-headed mindset and brilliant psychic abilities make him a formidable match against the brute force of Hellboy.

Hellboy II is not a terrific film though, as it does have it's fair share of infirmities. I briefly stated before that the first 15 minutes are a bit rough to get through. That might be giving it too much credit. In comparison to the rest of the film, the first 15 minutes seemed like a different movie altogether. I almost completely lost interest as I watched an awkward young Hellboy beg his father to read him a bedtime story. Clumsily shot, horribly acted, altogether unappealing to watch, I feared this movie was over before it even got started. Luckily because of Del Toro's ability to tell a story, I soon became entangled in this movies web. Although, the storyline itself was a bit difficult to appreciate. It was a little too familiar for my taste. A superhero that isn't favored by the public and must fight his own demons is a recipe that has been used in too many dishes (Spiderman, Batman, Hancock). The message of acceptance of everybody despite our differences has been played for years (All 3 X-Men films), and is becoming redundant now. It was also unrealistic to see not a single person stand up for Hellboy. In a scene where Hellboy saves a baby from a car about to be destroyed, not one person in the crowd shouts a positive comment. Every person is portrayed as close minded and arrogant. Even in a world of monsters, that seems a bit unrealistic.

Although not perfect and not quite as good as Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy II is energetic and amusing throughout. With an enchanting score from Danny Elfman, the action sequences in Hellboy II are a thrill to behold. They do not run too long and they do not indulge in blurry CGI. You can see everything that happens clearly, something that recent action films don't offer (Transformers, Spiderman 3). I was not a big fan of the first film so I did not expect much from this one. I was pleasantly surprised. With just the right mix of humor and action and a plethora of beautiful creatures, Hellboy II is smashing summer fun that could be appreciated by all ages. My rating (7/10)

Oh yea, there is also the funniest rendition of a Barry Manilow song EVER.

Hancock (2008)

The superhero genre gets flipped on its head with the release of Will Smith's new blockbuster Hancock. It is widely known that putting Will Smith in a lead role leads to box office gold, and with Hancock that trend continued as it grossed an estimated $63 million dollars in its opening weekend. But did this movie really deserve that business? After last years mediocre box office hit I Am Legend, I started to feel that maybe studios realized they don't need to make the movie good, just as long as Will Smith was headlining. I'm afraid the situation is the same with Hancock. The intriguing storyline follows Hancock (Will Smith), a booze-soaked superhero that has become a nuisance in the public eye. Every effort he makes to help fight crime ultimately leads to even more disaster. But Hancock's luck begins to change when he saves Public Relations representative Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) from being hit by a train. Although the community isn't happy about the destroyed train, the grateful Embrey invites Hancock to his house to discuss a proposition. Embrey wants to help Hancock become a beloved figure because that's what heroes deserve. Much to Ray's wife Mary's (Charlize Theron) chagrin, Hancock agrees to work to better his image. Using a mix of dark comedy and drama, Hancock sounds great on paper, but the transfer onto the screen is far from impressive.

There are a laundry list of problems that plagued this movie, but the number one reason Hancock suffers is the direction of Peter Berg. It is possible that Hancock could have succeeded as a straight up comedic superhero film that didn't take itself too seriously, but a heavy reliance on drama gave this movie the kiss of death. With such a clever and amusing plot, it is simply nonsensical to focus mainly on the serious aspects of the script. Berg seemed to realize this a little bit, as he did try to sprinkle as much comedy into the film as possible, but the execution was weak and altogether shoddy. It felt like when he was planning it he said, "OK we will have 5 minutes of comedy, then we'll do 15 minutes of serious, and then another 5 minutes of comedy, and then maybe 10 minutes of serious comedy, and then 5 minutes of just serious...." It did not feel authentic is the point I am trying to reach. Boring cinematography paired with cartoonish special effects turn Hancock into not only a visually unappealing film, but a dull film. A summer movie-goer will not be pleased with the scenes of destruction, as the film (despite Hancock's unruly nature) was very tame as far as action goes. Peter Berg messed up big time. (An even bigger mistake than agreeing to star in Corky Romano. God that movie sucked.)

As always Will Smith puts forth a major league effort to make the movie the best that he could. That is something that I have no problem crediting him with. Every film I have seen him in he gives it his all, which is more than I can say for many actors. The problem is, pretty much exactly what I said in my I Am Legend review, Will Smith is a GOOD actor but he is not a GREAT actor. He cannot carry a film on his shoulders without some support. Some may contest that The Pursuit of Happyness negates my opinion, but I have not seen that movie so my opinion stands. I am yet to see a film that Will Smith single-handedly overhauls, and that includes Hancock. Despite his huge effort, Smith's performance is really only enjoyable for the first half of the film. I was entertained as Hancock lackadaisically trudged around being an irritable, unfriendly character. It was when he became a reformed, traditional superhero that I began to lose interest. On top of this, Smith does not get the support he needs from the cast around him. Jason Bateman is always fun to watch, and I did like him in this picture. But there wasn't enough done by him to make the film itself better. The same goes for Charlize Theron, whose character of Mary was just boring. And much to my dismay, Mary becomes an important piece of the films plot. Performances: strike two for this movie.

It was probably difficult work coming up with a completely new superhero to base a movie off of. You can tell the writers had trouble making Hancock unique because his powers are flight, strength, and invincibility. Basically, he's a second rate superman. Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan are the men responsible for this screenplay, and they came very close to making it great. But with the inclusion of a twist that is downright silly and unsatisfying, Hancock's story takes an ugly turn as it tries to be intelligent and creative. Perhaps Peter Berg doesn't deserve the brunt of the blame, and the writers should be chastised for the missteps of Hancock. After a promising start, the story debilitates into incoherence and leaves us with below average fight sequences and an ending that is far too abrupt to be stimulating.

Running at a mere 92 minutes, Hancock does us some good by not dragging out its existence. Any longer, and this movie would be receiving an even lower rating from me. There is a line in one of the commercials for this film where Hancock says "Does it look like I care about what people think?" I think that was filmed accidentally, and it was just Will Smith talking to somebody on the set. Someone told him "You know Will, this movie isn't very good. People are probably going to think you lost your touch", and then he responded with "Does it look like I care what people think? They'll pay to see me and that's all that matters." Only the camera cut before he could include that second statement. I'm kidding of course. I have nothing but respect for Will Smith. I just found it ironic that his character says that line, while critics everywhere are bashing this film. OK it was a stupid joke, let's move on. Hancock is a good idea that is marred by bad direction, performances, and plot development. The only thing saving Hancock from a rating of 2 is an entertaining first act. My rating (4/10)

Wanted (2008)

James McAvoy takes on his first major action role in Wanted, this summer's first over the top special effects extravaganza. We have already seen plenty of movies this summer that are action packed and often unbelievable, but only Wanted and it's total disregard for the irrefutable laws of physics made my jaw drop and my eyes widen. McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a bored accountant with a wretched boss, a cheating girlfriend, and no discernible talents that separate him from the faceless crowd of people that work in the cubicles around him. But Wesley's life soon becomes a lot more exciting after a fateful trip to the supermarket. While picking up his annual refill of anxiety medication, he gets caught in the crossfire between two assassins, Fox (Angelina Jolie) and Cross (Thomas Kretschmann). After a well shot car chase, Fox rescues Wesley and brings him to The Fraternity, a group of elite assassins that has been in existence for centuries. Members of the Fraternity have been trained to perform the amazing (and physically impossible) feat of curving bullets to hit targets at any angle. Wesley is then introduced to Sloan (Morgan Freeman), the leader of the Fraternity. Sloan tells Wesley his father was killed by Cross, the assassin that was in the supermarket. Cross had gone rogue and began shooting down Fraternity members one by one. Now he wanted Wesley to hone in his unknown ability to become a great assassin like his father, and track down Cross before he destroys the Fraternity completely.

The last time I saw James McAvoy was in 2006's The Last King of Scotland. In that performance, he proved to me that he was an acting force that would rip through Hollywood like a storm. I was surprised he did not receive an Oscar nomination along with Forest Whitaker in that film. Wanted is a total change of direction for the Scottish actor, and he handles the task like a seasoned professional, really falling into the persona of an ass kicking machine. Although he couldn't quite deliver those one line catch phrases that every action hero always has, he did deliver everything else needed to create an interesting and likeable character that can make even the most gruesome murder look awesome. McAvoy is a tremendous talent and he will carry on a successful career as both an action star and serious actor for many years to come. Angelina Jolie, no stranger to the action hero role takes up the supporting spot in Wanted as Fox, the assassin who trains Wesley to become a killing machine. Her character was a bit one dimensional, but she played the part well and brought what was needed to the table. I'm one of the few men in the world who don't find Jolie attractive, so I couldn't really appreciate the whole "sexy empowered female" aspect of the character. Morgan Freeman is Fraternity leader Sloan and much like Jolie, doesn't bring a lot of dynamics to the film. He plays the part that he was hired to play and that was all. Wanted was basically James McAvoy's opportunity to show off his slick action hero side. That's good enough for me.

Wanted marks the American film debut of Russian-Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov. I do not know what Bekmambetov's Night Watch series is like because I have not seen it, but from watching Wanted I can tell that he is skilled in the art of overblown action sequences. Him and Michael Bay should hang out. The use of slow motion during fight scenes surprisingly does not get boring and dry, which is good because that effect is used often. The way cars fly through the air in such awkward fashions and then miraculously land right side up is a bit too much like a video game, because it is simply not possible. But plausibility has no business being in this film. It's main purpose is to inspire awe and make ones' adrenaline start pumping, and that's what it did. Although the action sequences in Wanted were top notch, the pacing of the film was a bit erratic. I think Bekmambetov became too intent on keeping the film fast paced, and as a result created a movie that felt rushed. I never thought I would say this about a movie, but perhaps he should have made the film 15 minutes longer to make the transitions a bit easier to handle. The story's progression developed fully, but in a very hasty fashion that did irk me a little bit. Wanted was written by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, the team that wrote the amazing 3:10 to Yuma remake and the not so amazing 2 Fast 2 Furious sequel. Adapting from the comic book series, Brandt and Haas did an excellent job of creating interesting dialogue and keeping a (somewhat) sensible storyline. The twist ending that they wrote was not predictable, and it made for a satisfying resolution.

Now, I really did truly enjoy Wanted. It is one of the best action films I have seen recently. But on top of that, I also got a 99 in physics. And I hate to be "this guy", but I can disprove the whole idea of bending bullets with an explanation right now. So I will. (If you are not interested in a science lesson, please proceed to the next paragraph). The laws of motion state that, for example, if a ball enters a semi-circular tube resting on top of a table, it will obviously follow the path of the tube because it has no other choice. But once that ball reaches the end of the tube, it will not continue following the circular path it was on inside the tube. Instead it will simply roll straight at the point where it was released. The same principle applies for a bullet. If you are flicking your wrist and pulling the trigger, the bullet is obviously moving with the gun because it is still inside the barrel. But once the bullet exits the barrel, it does not continue following the path of the gun. It will go straight at the point from which it exits. Unless my physics teacher lied to me, I'm 95% sure that I'm correct.

Laws of physics aside, Wanted is an exciting summer thriller that will astonish you with impressive stunts and sequences. The 110 minute runtime goes by pretty quickly because of the hasty direction I mentioned earlier, so that gives you one good thing from one bad thing. Don't expect anything more than a good time when you go to see Wanted, and if you ask me, a good time is all you should want from a summer film. My rating (8/10)

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Riding hard on the coat-tails of Iron Man is Marvel's next superhero adventure, The Incredible Hulk. To clear up any discrepancies you may have about whether this film is a remake of or a sequel to Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk, it is neither. The Incredible Hulk is simply a "revisiting" to the character with a different approach. In other words, the first movie sucked, so they started over. The new film finds Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), a once leading scientist on the run in Brazil five years after he was exposed to the gamma rays that gave him his incredible abilities. He is being chased by General Ross (William Hurt), the man who inadvertently caused Banner's change while trying to create a new weapon for the army. When Ross finally tracks down Banner, he enlists the help of decorated soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to bring him in. When Blonsky witnesses the Hulk's power first-hand, he volunteers himself to undergo a procedure much like Banner did, only with a controlled dose. Meanwhile, in the search for a cure, Banner finds his way back to the States where he is reunited with the love of his life Betty Ross (Liv Tyler). The two meet up with Banner's internet pen pal Dr. Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson), who has been working tirelessly to come up with a cure. But the army is hot on Banner's tail, and they finally capture him after years of pursuit. While this is happening, Blonsky becomes obsessed with becoming a super soldier, and forces Sterns to make him into a creature much like the Hulk. From this, the Abomination is born. Banner must now become the Hulk in order to save the city from destruction.

I must admit that in my personal opinion, the Hulk is the least interesting superhero from both the Marvel and DC universes. The idea of having a superhero who's main enemy is himself is far from, well, incredible. But even with this mentality, I was able to thoroughly enjoy The Incredible Hulk for what it was. A major reason this film works is Edward Norton. Much like Robert Downey Jr. represented billionaire playboy Tony Stark in a believable fashion, Norton convincingly plays scientist Bruce Banner. Whoever is in charge of casting for Marvel movie heroes should get a promotion. However, his performance was far from outstanding, as I was hoping to see a little bit more from him. I do not feel he properly acknowledged the potential that his character had. Even so, he was able to keep an air of suspense present throughout the film and his performance felt authentic. Although his performance was very good, it did seem magnificent compared to the complete and utter disaster that was Liv Tyler's Betty Ross. Emotionless, uninvolving, annoying, laughable at the wrong times: these are just a few ways to describe her performance. I would not be surprised if her name appears on the Razzie ballot for Worst Actress. Luckily enough for Tyler, she was surrounded by enough talent in Norton and William Hurt to save basically every scene she appeared in. Hurt plays her army general father Thaddeus Ross, and he did a very believable job of it. He played it with the gruff attitude and stern demeanor that a General would need, especially in periods of distress. Hurt is also accompanied by one of the greatest mustaches I've seen in recent movie history. I think it is accurate to say that William Hurt's mustache provided more entertainment by doing nothing than Liv Tyler did by "acting". The role of Emil Blonsky was very well cast, as Tim Roth did a terrific job with the part. Even though the Abomination isn't the coolest villain around, the character of Blonsky was very interesting to watch, and I sensed that Roth really became this role. At no point did I feel that Roth wasn't trying his hardest to achieve the best results from Blonsky. Tim Blake Nelson plays the eccentric Dr. Samuel Sterns and pretty much does his job. He acts eccentrically. In this film Nelson's role was pretty minor, but if there is a sequel he will be a crucial character.

The Incredible Hulk was directed by Louis Leterrier, who had previously helmed Transporter 2. With that under his belt, it makes sense that the action sequences in The Incredible Hulk were remarkable. There is something about watching two giant blobs of CGI (Hulk and Abomination) hurl cars at each other that is simply awe inspiring. By calling them "two giant blobs of CGI" I do not intend to insult the film, because it really did look fantastic. I only call them that because, well, they are two giant blobs of CGI. But Letterier's direction was very much a mixed bag. Some scenes were shot with such beauty and professionalism that I would be floored with astonishment. But then other scenes would be so cheesy and amateurish that I would shift uncomfortably in my seat thinking "Ouch, that was awkward". Letterier also did something which I cannot stand, and that is overuse dramatic rain sequences. At most, a film could have two dramatic rain sequences, but they MUST be at least 45 minutes apart. Letterier brought us two in a matter of 15 minutes. Yes he can film one hell of an incredible action scene, but the man cannot do serious very well.

A major reason I enjoyed The Incredible Hulk was it's pace. I should also credit director Louis Letterier with an ability to keep a film alive, not allowing it to sag any more than it should at any given time. At just under 2 hours, the time seems to fly by as the story unfolds so steadily you'll find yourself in disbelief that you are already watching the final battle (much like I was). It was said that over 70 minutes of footage was cut from The Incredible Hulk, and thank goodness it was. The 114 minutes in the final print were entertainment enough, we don't need a 3+ hour epic. In the version sent to theaters, every scene had a purpose and no of them were dull. Keep your 70 minutes, we don't want them.

When it comes down to it, the Hulk is the lamest of the superheroes, but this film certainly makes him seem more interesting than he is. Some very good performances and some great directing (50% of the time) really make The Incredible Hulk worth a watch. The dialogue at times is choppy and contrived, but I found myself overlooking that fact. Not without its fair share of flaws, The Incredible Hulk is still a fun summer film with intense action sequences that aren't too dizzying or incomprehensive (::cough:: Spiderman 3 ::cough::). Marvel, you are 2 for 2. My rating (7/10)

Oh, and if you were as excited as I was about the after the credits scene of Iron Man, you're going to love the final two lines of this film. (There is no after credits scene, I figure I'll save you 10 minutes)