Movie Review: Safe House

Safe House is the story of Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a low level CIA guy stuck in a nowhere job and desperately wanting to get more involved. His chance comes when notorious traitor and expert spy Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is forced to surrender to the US Embassy in South Africa to elude being killed by a large, well-trained army of henchmen.

Taken to the safe house ran by Weston for safe-keeping, Frost proves to be highly sought-after. The well-trained CIA team finds itself under a well-co-ordinated attack. During the assault Frost convinces Weston that he will be killed while Frost is kept alive so Weston elects to try to take Frost back to the embassy.

Power plays in the CIA headquarters result in him being told to stay away from the embassy until a specified time. As he wheels around the city trying to keep Frost both under arrest and safe, it becomes obvious somebody within the CIA is leaking information.

As a side note, I had the who pegged within the first 10 minutes of the film, I thought it was that obvious...though later they throw some red herrings out that might let the unwary viewer begin to suspect someone else. It is a minor quibble...writing a solid Benedict Arnold into a story like this with concealed motivations and actions is very difficult.

By the time the final showdown is reached Weston has changed his goals completely. His use of a key phrase in the movie to respond to the CIA chief in his exit interview is pitch perfect.

The things I love about this movie are multitude. The villains are solid and believable. Unlike some action-adventure movies where the villains are incompetent buffoons who would seem incapable of defeating a well armed termite, these are very competent...as are the CIA team they take out at the safe house.

This matters. All too often, in order to make the ultimate hero of the piece seem stronger their allies are imbeciles who would be defeated in a battle versus snowmen in Death Valley in July. In this case they are quite talented, put up an expert defense and are overcome, thus leading to the villains being a credible threat.

Second, the characters of Frost and Weston are done well enough to draw you in. Though entertaining movies like this one are never hailed on Oscar night, the acting in it is excellent; you do not see Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington, you actually see Weston and Frost.

Third, the camera work was mostly well done. While there were moments of jump-cuts, close ups during fights, etc., for the most part we were actually allowed to see what was happening. When you go to an action movie and actually get to SEE the action it makes it much better.

I also liked the synergy of the name Weston. I instantly tagged it as being a reference to the titular star of Burn Notice, Michael Westen (Jefferey Donovan). It lent a certain fictional credibility to the idea a guy like Weston who had spent his entire CIA career in a low-profile, action less safe house could run, drive, shoot, and miracle his way to getting the bad guy, recovering the information, and surviving.

Of course, there also must be quibbles, so in the interest of fairness, there were a couple things I did not like about the movie. First of course would be those moments when they failed to let us see the action. Fewer than in many movies, they were still there.

Second would be a rather major one; the difference between the movie as previewed and the movie as executed.

In the scene in question Weston is on the ground as a train roars by. Frost holds a gun to his head as he cringes in fear. Each time Weston spouts a line, then fires the gun right next to his head, the concussive blast then disorienting Weston. The problem is the line in the previews and the line in the movie are so different it completely changes the focus of the movie.

In the movie Frost says, "I only kill professionals." Fair enough. Good reason for letting Weston off the hook in their world.

The problem lies here; in the preview the line is, "I WANT you to take me in." The clear inference is there is some reason Frost needs to be taken into secure intelligence community quarters. It implies he fires the shot to show Weston it is for his own purpose. This is reinforced by a moment in the previews where two CIA honchos are talking and one says, "A guy like Frost doesn't just walk into an American Embassy".*

Therefore, the expectation set by the previews of Frost having some ingenious purpose for willingly and intentionally being captured by the CIA is never fulfilled; it is a false premise and unfair to those paying attention.

Third, watching Weston go from never having fired a weapon to out-shooting crack commando teams was a bit of a jolt that threatened to pull me out of the moment, though ultimately the story was fun enough to make that no big deal and, after all, we do want our heroes to be capable as well.

With that aside, it was still a very entertaining, pretty action-packed, layered bit of film-making that was worth the price of admission. Hopefully I was able to give the gist of the story without giving away any of the spoilers.


*Not a direct quote, but pretty close

Movie Review: Chronicle

Lets start from the top; I am not the target audience for this movie. I am not an angst-ridden, troubled teen with parent issues, social withdrawal, and a constant need to video-document my every move.

At the same time, I truly like a good action-adventure yarn and, since I number among my favorite movies many other yarns aimed at a younger set (Despicable Me, How to Train your Dragon) I elected to see this one anyway.

The movie tells the story of Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a young man who has few friends and a bad home life, and his growing interaction with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and new-found friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan) as his separation grows with his parents.

When the movie begins we see Andrew having a tough home life. His mom is deathly ill and his dad is a broke, disabled former fire fighter. Meanwhile, only his cousin Matt speaks to him in any other way than bullying.

Unpopular at school, miserable at home, Andrew begins videotaping everything that happens.

Matt, trying to get him to become more personable, convinces him to go to a party where they meet Steve, popular soon-to-be class president, top athlete, smart guy and popular student. Andrew's video camera is needed, so Matt and Steve convince him to go down a hole with them where they tough a McGuffin and develop super powers.

At first they just play around with their powers, doing Jackass-like stunts, but soon their powers begin to grow.

As Andrew's home life gets worse, his friendship with Steve and Matt grows. In an attempt to help him become more popular, Steve convinces him to perform at a talent show which indeed increases his popularity...until he makes an embarrassing social gaffe at a party.

The difficult parts of his life overwhelm Andrew and, as he continues to videotape everything, his life spirals out of control. People begin dying and ultimately Matt and Andrew have a confrontation; can Andrew find friendship with his cousin or will the pressures on his young life lead to ultimate separation from family, friends and life itself?

Ultimately it is Matt who must make a fateful decision; can Andrew be allowed to continue to spiral out of control or, if not, can he be stopped by any means short of death?


The movie uses its platform to preach on several issues. Among these are the growing publicity as video blogs, you tube, and so forth make more and more portions of previously private life public and bullying.

This is a tragic tale of a young man who runs into too many pressures and ultimately documents his downward spiral and rejection of those who try to keep him away from it.

From a technical standpoint, the movie made a choice to shift back and forth between steady cameras and the shaky, cannot really track what is going on "real feel" made popular by The Blair Witch Project".

I understand why they did it. There are parts of the movie where it works. But there are parts of the movie where it does not. Allegory for public violence done to inner turmoil or not, action scenes should not be shot that way. It turns what might be a well-choreographed bit of entertainment into a cringe inducing, "what just happened?" bit of nonsense.

Ultimately, this story fell short. The focus changed too bizarrely, the resolution was unsatisfying, and the action not enough to make up for the various weaknesses. It has a few cheap laughs, a few pathetic moments, and an overall dreary feel that takes it out of the realm of entertainment without really doing a good job of addressing the potential issues.

Save your coin, watch it on Red Box...or not at all.

Movie Review: UnKnown

Recently I was offered a free ticket to a pre-screening of Unknown (2011). being a known movie buff to the point it is almost degenerate, I snapped at the opportunity.

I like Liam Neeson. Despite some horrific choices like Clash of the Titans (2010), he more regularly turns in fun, entertaining stuff like the ridiculous A-Team (2010), Taken (2008), and so forth.

So I was excited to see this one. He proved capable of an action role in Taken so at least had some credibility.

The movie starts a bit slowly with the arrival in Berlin of Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife Elizabeth Harris (January Jones). They get separated at the hotel when he realizes his briefcase is still in the taxi.

He hails another taxi to retrieve the briefcase, gets into an accident that creates gaps in his memory, and then the movie really begins.

When he remembers he is supposed to be at a conference and shows up, he encounters various problems. Having lost his wallet in the accident and having his passport in the lost briefcase, he cannot prove who he is.

The situation is exacerbated when his wife turns out to be married to someone else and both of them claim to have no idea who he is. A professor at the conference who invited him has never met him in person.

He begins to doubt who he is until, during an MRI, someone attempts to assassinate him.

The mystery of who he is and why his wife claims not to know him gets deeper as assassins begin seeking to kill him. Who is Martin Harris and why does nobody know who he is?

The movie moves along at a stiff pace, revealing bits and pieces and keeping you intrigued right up until the end. All the clues to the mystery are there if you know what to look for, though of course the real motives of a few key players are only revealed in hindsight.

There are a couple turns that you may or may not see coming, but it is a great ride getting there.

Along the way there are some fun performances, including the delightful Herr Ernst Jürgen (Bruno Ganz).

There is a major quibble with this movie, however. Director Jaume Collet-Serra fell prey to the idea that the best way to present action scenes is numerous tight cuts that make it impossible to tell what is happening.

You can tell someone hit someone, but not who did the hitting and who the grunting in pain. Cars appear from nowhere, there is no point of reference in chase scenes, and thus the action in an action movie is replaced by blank stares at other patrons and wondering who is winning the fight and how.

This is a trend that needs to stop. A chase scene where you cannot tell if the pursuer is 2" or 2 miles behind is a horrible scene. Stop it. Just...stop.

That aside, it is an enjoyable journey getting to the pleasing finale. This movie probably would be good to re-watch once knowing the ending to see all the little hints, but would probably lose its charm after that as the very things that make it entertaining would then be gone.

The slow reveal of why people do not know Smith is the story and very enjoyable at that.

Movie Review: Megamind

It is not a big secret that I am a fan of both animated movies and super hero movies. Combine them, a la The Incredibles (2004) and I am up for it.

Also not a secret is my tendency to root for the likable villain...and key in on the likable. Syndrome (Jason Lee) in The Incredibles, absolutely. Mr Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in Batman and Robin (1997)...not so much.

Of course, with the advent of the Shrek franchise, the "twist" of starring the villain has really taken off with mixed results. The first, second and fourth Shreks were pretty good...Shrek the Third closely resembles its name if you simply drop the "h" sound from the title.

Happily N'evr After (2007) was so abominably bad I should ban it ever being mentioned on this website again on pain of being forced to watch it three weeks straight.

Of more recent vintage, Despicable Me (2010) was very good.

But with that background, I anxiously awaited the release of Megamind wherein Megamind (Will Ferrell) tires of his villainous battles with the heroic Superman clone Metro Man (Brad Pitt) and tries to become a hero.


Brief outline; Megamind and Metro Man have battled so often their battles have become predictable cliches, the outcome known to both of them.

When Megamind inadvertently discovers Metro man's secret weakness and defeats him, he is able to run amok in the city with the help of his faithful Minion (David Cross) and his Brainbots.





Success is not all it is cracked up to be, however, so he sets out to create a new enemy to face. But the new enemy foils his plans by turning into a villain. Can Megamind mend his ways, defeat the new villain, and get the girl?


So synopsis out of the way, lets get to the good and bad of this movie.

First, the good. There are some great moments of humor, the action is entertaining, the dialogue pretty good too. They take some well-aimed potshots at trite, predictable Super hero conventions but do it in such a light-hearted, entertaining manner that it does not feel pretentious.

They also take a tired old story line, punch it up and let you enjoy the tale of redemption embarked on by the titular hero of the piece.

Now the bad. There is not much. I was entertained from beginning to end. The extended flashback felt like it fit, as each piece fell into place it made sense, and the resolution was creative, entertaining and satisfying. So the bad part would be...I wish this was out on DVD now so I could watch it again.

If you enjoy light-hearted animated romps with a delightful sense of humor, go see this movie.

Movie Review: Jonah Hex

I have been preparing to hate this movie for a long time. See, while it was in development, they reputedly completely dumped the "real" Jonah Hex in favor of a story involving voodoo, zombies, and mass quantities of supernatural oddity.

Let me back up.

Sometime in the early 80's, I was at a friends' house and saw this magnificent cover.

He was done reading it so he gave it to me and I about wore that thing out with numerous re-readings of it.

Here was a magnificent anti-hero. To this day I can quote the tag line, He Was a Hero to Some, a Villain to Others, and Wherever He Rode People Spoke His Name in Whispers. He Had No Friends, This Jonah Hex, But He Did Have Two Companions: One Was Death itself...the Other, The Acrid Smell of Gunsmoke...

As an avowed Western and comedy lover, here was the guy I loved to read about. Fast with his gun and his mouth, he toured the West shooting up mass quantities of people (467 by the count of this Hex-a-holic...and if you have read many of his comics, that seems low for 101 issues..."ONLY" 4.67 kills for hex per issue? Seems low...)

And while he was racking up the body count, he was keeping a running commentary in his head replete with wise-cracks, one liners, and testosterone dismissals of the most trying circumstances. I had read other comics before...but this was the first one I truly loved.

I scrimped, saved, collected bottles and cans to purchase the next issue. When he was thrown into the future for the ill-starred Hex series, I was devastated....until it proved to be actually pretty entertaining, though having just a short run (18 issues) before being canceled.

Later, I went on a buying spree and purchased about 70% of the entire run of Jonah Hex. He became an old friend, and one I very much wanted to see brought to the big screen...just not in some ridiculous zombie-battle.*

So when the trailers showed him "resurrecting" a bad guy, blowing out "spirit smoke" from his mouth and them referring repeatedly to his supernatural powers, yet also demonstrating the penchant for violent gun-based retribution and snarky one-liners, I was in a quandary.

Do I go see a movie bound to disappoint me and thus encourage crap....or do I pass up on seeing some version, any version, of one of my all-time favorite fictional characters on the big screen?

I had a free movie ticket and a desire to avoid traffic, so...off to the theatre I went.

The movie starts in classic fashion...Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) dragging multiple bodies behind his horse, on his way to collect a reward. He is a fine bounty hunter.

Soon the situation degenerates into another shoot out, this one a bit more atypical of the classic Hex comic but that is forgivable...it is a forgivable nod to the brainless summer blockbuster action-blow-em-up adventure genre.

It also showed somewhat of the different direction director Jimmy Hayward was going to take it. Hex does some pointless, over-the-top destruction that even for the calloused Hex is exceptionally violent.

There are two reviews of this movie. First, the lover of classic Hex.

I am burned that they took Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich) from the debonair, refined, politician behind the scenes mysterious enemy and moved him clearly into the cheesy villain with decent plans but too ready to do his own dirty work and thus be eliminated reminiscent of the Joker (Heath Ledger) in the Dark Knight movie.

Gone were the deep, rich characterizations that would take dozens of issues to bring to fruition...no enemy who spanned every issue from Weird Western Tales #22 and he was still a major force when the aforementioned issue 77.

Also gone were Jonah's troubled childhood with an alcoholic father and prostitute mother, his adoption in and expulsion from the Apache tribe...and how he got his star.

Still there were his ability to out shoot, out think, out-skulk, and out-track anybody while popping off sarcastic and witty one-liners.

Added were a malicious streak...such as his gunning down of a guy for asking how he got his scar and his blowing up of the town where he had already killed 8/10ths of the population.

Also added were his supernatural powers and apparent inability to be killed by gunfire.

There were also some nice nods to classic Hex stories...like the callback to the half-wolf Iron Jaws that was with Hex for a few issues, Turnbull carrying an eagle-top cane, the appearance of an Indian Wife recalling White Fawn, and even the pit-fighting.

It made for a Hex that was interesting and intriguing but just barely lacking.

Now for the movie review from the guy who wanted to see Hex on the big screen and was willing to compromise.

This is not a movie for those who want hole-less plots, who want to think, or who want reality.

But if you are willing to suspend your disbelief and watch an adrenaline fueled duel of wills between the bad guy (Jonah Hex) and the worse guy (Turnbull) duke it out, you have come to the right place.

Burke (Michael Fassbender) is an outstanding villain. He is fearless, intelligent, and a worthy foe for Hex.

Lilah Tallulah Black (Megan Fox) is exactly the type of girl that a man like Hex would be expected to associate with.

And the story proceeds along at a good clip with some metaphysical meanderings taking place along the way. It is a good, entertaining, quick-moving yarn that sticks to what it is good at....high-octane action interspersed with build-ups to the next high-octane set piece with occasional pseudo-dramatic moments...will Turnbull and his men blow up Washington? Or will Hex stop them in time?

In the end, it is a basic revenge for revenge tale that is pretty entertaining along the way.

Hayward shows a good eye for the camera, with some nice framing and interesting point of view shots. He can also show the panorama when necessary.

Other than Malkovich, the acting is pretty solid. You are seldom pulled out of the movie and reminded these are not real people, they are actors playing created people.

Unfortunately, this is not true with Malkovich. He tries to be smooth but comes off cheesy and over acting. He is like a serious version of Jim Carrey...and that is not meant to be a compliment.

Brolin, on the other hand, brings a nice presence to the Hex role and there are some great supporting actors such as Will Arnett in a serious roll as Lieutenant Grass and Tom Wopat as Slocum.

Ultimately, I enjoyed myself enough that a movie I was prepared to hate I walked away from having had a good time.

* It is only fair to note that under the Vertigo banner, Hex DID in fact engage in stories of this nature. And, in this writer's humble yet accurate opinion...they sucked so bad I have not read his new series, either.

The Weasel is (strongly) satisfied.

Movie Review: Shrek Forever After

Four movies. Ten Years. A zillion laughs. A sea change.

All these phrases and more fit the Shrek franchise.

When Shrek opened in 2001, it was noted for the way it "stood traditional fairy tales on their head". It capitalized on elements of anti-establishment emotions and made a hero of the classical villain-figure.

In 2004 with Shrek II they expanded the characters and broadened the story lines.

The laughs in both were plenteous and the references to well-known tales and cliches easy, natural, and awesome. And the "filler", Shrek the Halls (2007) was classic.

Later, it turned out 2007 was a dark year. In Shrek the Third...or as I prefer to refer to it, Shrek the turd, they forgot what made the first two movies great.

They tried so hard to push a particular concept that they forgot a key part of the formula that worked so well in parts one in two...namely, that the jokes come as part of the story, not at the expense of the story.

Pushing jokes, "non-traditional" ideas and so forth led to it more closely resembling epic fail icon Happily N'Ever After (2006) than the first two members of the Shrek franchise. It was unfunny, unentertaining, and borderline unwatchable.

That was unfortunate, because it showed promise. It just never delivered...and the failure was so epic that the entire Arthurian legend portion of the add-ons was completely eliminated from what is supposed to be the closing number, Shrek Forever After.

The story is nothing super exciting or original...but that is not necessarily a complaint. There are only so many times you can "turn cliches on their head" before there are no cliches left to turn.

At its roots, the movie can be summed up in either of two ways; 1) Shrek (Mike Meyers) experiences a mid-life crisis and must learn how lucky he is or 2) "I did not know what I had until it was gone" as Shrek intones late in the movie.

The story revolves around a deal Shrek makes with the delightful Rumplestiltskin (Walt Dohrn) who, along with his goose, are exactly the type of villain the first two Shreks had...you liked the villain nearly as much as Shrek. He was funny, entertaining, and a fitting counter-point.

There are many jokes, some nice one-liners, great animation, and a light but fun story. The "Do the roar" kid is outstanding.

They also do a nice job of drawing the story to a close. Shrek is no longer the feared, dangerous ogre....he has settled into life with wife, children, and friends...and he is happy about that. They conclude with a montage of some great moments for the series.

I have read several critics just blasting this flick for not being as fresh, original, or layered as the first one.

Maybe. But it is still very entertaining. We had a full theatre of people laughing from beginning to end and walked away satisfied. The bad taste from the third effort is gone and we can put it to bed with fond memories of this one.

Was it the best of the four? No...probably third best, but in a series like this...that is still pretty good.

And I saw it in just 2-d...really, it did not strike me as anything worth the extra premium for 3-d tickets. The animation looked spectacular, the jokes were every bit as funny, and this is a title that will end up on my shelf when it is released.

The Weasel is Full

Movie Review: Date Night

I should admit up front that I A) am not a Tina Fay fan, finding her at best modestly funny and at worst downright unfunny and B) I can take or leave Steve Carrel. Loved him in Get Smart but in the Office, too much of the humor is "uncomfortable humor" where you are supposed to laugh at him while liking him.



It is to his credit that he pulls it off.



With that pairing, I was quite ambivalent about seeing it...until my wife saw it and loved it. So with her recommendation in mind, off I went.



First, the movie review itself;



So long as you are capable of suspending your disbelief, this is a marvelous, entertaining movie. Yes, the plot and situations are ridiculous, bizarre, and unbelievable...but when you lose yourself in the movie, they make sense and provide the perfect vehicle for the stars.



Steve and Tina play understated, fun roles that become not just believable, but empathetic.



There are some laughs along the way, a couple minor plot twists that add just that little extra bit to the story and in the end a very satisfying conclusion. If you like "serviceable comedies" this one is a home run.





Where Date Night really shines, however, is its take on the modern marriage.



With both spouses often working outside the home, there is often a lack of energy for interacting with one another. Furthermore, there can easily develop a complacency, an assumption that all is well with the status quo.



The problems faced by the Fosters that come to light as they rampage across the city causing rampant property destruction, engaging in breaking and entering, theft, and entrapment, and consider whether their marriage has grown stale or not are things that many couples may find familiar.



Are they "boring" because their nights have a regular routine? has their marriage "lost the spark" because they no longer "get it on" with the regularity of rabbits or porn stars? Are they just going through the motions?

Or are those signs that they are working together in so much harmony that they are working for their common good?

A telling moment comes when it comes to light that Phil (Carrell) had actually read the entire, horrendous book referenced throughout the movie. He had not done so out of a sense of duty or obligation, but did so because, as he says to Claire (Fay), "It was important to you."

He did not resent reading books he lacked interest in but rather enjoyed it because it mattered to his wife. He did not ignore her interests but exerted some effort into learning what they were, expended energy into seeing to it that she was able to engage in them and enjoy them.

It was actually the picture of a truly wonderful marriage. They are comfortable with one another, they care about one another, and they are willing to work to make the life of their partner better even at the expense of sacrificing some of their own desires.

Theirs is the type of marriage oft-mocked in today's society. Aside from the duel career versus "making dinner in heels and pearls", it was almost a 50s stereotypical marriage...except real.

The type of marriage that many millions of happy couples have.

Sure, we and/or our mate may not be the most handsome, fittest, richest, or smartest person...but to our mate we are.

And when Phil tells Claire, "I would do it all again." referring to the marriage, it is a beautiful moment.

Yes, it is a reaffirming of "traditional" marriage. But I am one of those people who appreciates that.

I have my Claire. I hope I am her Phil. And even if we never steal a reservation and spend the next few hours destroying a town, running for our lives, dressing as strippers and having robot sex, I will still love her with every fiber of my being. I may never walk 20 miles into the desert to menstruate...but in the feelings expressed, I identify with Phil and Claire. (And yes, that is an inside reference, sensible only to those who see the movie. So go see it.)

Movie Review:How to Train Your Dragon

Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is a young Viking who missed all the Viking traits...he is slight of built, slender, wiry, weak, and creative.

His father, Stoick (Gerard Butler) is quite disappointed in him since he is not a "real Viking". Hiccup, in the course of trying to prove he is a Viking, brings down a dragon with one of his inventions.

The story then follows his developing friendship with Toothless the dragon as they figure out the "hereditary enmity" between dragons and Vikings is actually an acquired taste. The story follows a predictable arc ending in reconciliation and new friendship.

That is no indictment of the movie, however. The joy in this movie is broad and rich.

It comes from the beautiful animation, the heartwarming story, and the entertaining story.

Sometimes those of us who have seen a vast number of movies and/or read a wide range of literature tend to get a bit jaded. Sure, the story arc here is familiar, many of the jokes have been seen before...but that has more to do with the number of flicks I have seen than the quality of this movie.

The story is good...that is why it has been done before. The fun comes in the slight tweaks, the cool animation, and the way Toothless will remind you of the coolest dog you ever had.

I loved this movie and walked away smiling. Love the animation, the story, the jokes. It will be coming to my house in DVD form.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

Tim Burton made his name as a director for having a skewed, warped vision of the world that came through in offbeat, off-kilter, and edgy movies. The movie viewer who anticipates standard colors, appearances and fare in a Burton flick will inevitably be sadly disappointed.


The Alice in Wonderland world then seems like a natural for him. If he can turn Willie Wonka from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory into a freak show that makes the creepy version played by Gene Wilder seem downright normal…which he did…then the possibilities for the Mad Hatter, Cheshire Cat, Queen of Hearts, and so forth are many indeed.

That makes the bland, uninspired, dare I say outright boring Alice in Wonderland all the more surprising. There is no sense of fun in the drab Mad Hatter played by Johnny Depp, the Knave (Crispin Glover) is…boring, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is boring, the Queen of Hearts (Helena Bonham Carter) is…boring, the story....is boring, the cinematography...well, you guess what I think it is.

Burton did not expend much energy on this flick. From the formulaic, stereotypical “villains who are not real villains, just clueless, self-absorbed people” trying to convince Alice to marry the simpering, image-conscious Lord Charles Kingsley (Martin Csokas) in the opening scene to the final “sailing off into the sunset” moment, the movie just plods along going nowhere.

There are moments of fun. Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas) are mildly amusing and the movie would be better with more of them and less of everyone else. The rocking horse bugs, for example, are at least easy to look at. But they disappear and with them the imagination you usually find in a Burton movie. There is little or no originality in the remainder of the movie.

There are a few curious yet unbelievably major plot holes…such as how the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry) can assume the appearance and form of the Mad Hatter, or why the deposed White Queen (Anne Hathaway) has a nicer castle than the Red Queen.

But the supporting characters feel…boring, incomplete…there are no memorable secondary characters. This is a surprisingly uninspired, unoriginal, insipid bit of movie drivel not worthy of the talents of Burton, Depp, or anyone else involved in the project.

I never expect much from a Burton movie and so often receive a pleasant surprise as his dark, twisted take on the world turns certain things on their head and makes them entertaining. Not this time.

If you have a free movie rental via Netflix, save it for something better than this stinker.

Movie Review: Edge of Darkness

For a while it looked like Mel Gibson had killed his movie career. Between movies found insensitive by some groups (really? Passion of the Christ? People feel they, as a modern group, are being called to account for a 2000 year old event because somebody made a movie based on the best documented source available? Perhaps some Persians should have been up in arms over 300 then...), drunk driving, and all around oddness. He kind of was becoming the Dennis Rodman of cinema.

Mix in the train wreck Apocalypto and you have a guy nobody really wants to see or hear from. This is not the same guy who made Lethal Weapon, Braveheart, The Patriot or even Paycheck.

Somewhere along the line he lost his cachet, and being somewhat up in years, his days as an action star seem somewhat behind him, yet an action-thriller was the entire marketing of Edge of Darkness.

It is unfortunate that the previews spoil one of the best "twists" in this fairly by-the-numbers action adventure yarn. There are a couple other minor surprises, but it mostly follows the film-by-numbers to the letter.

Not that it is a knock on it...Darkness is a rollicking good time with plenty of violence, intriguing characters, a mystery that, even if you figure it out the first time the villain and/or anti-heroes come on screen, is still fun to watch get where it is going.

When Emma Craven (Bojana Novakocik) is shot down in front of Detective Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson), it sets him on an investigation that will lead to the halls of Congress, the headquarters of major corporations, and points in between.

Along the way he has some fascinating interplay with Jedburgh (Ray Winstone), the mysterious enforcer-for-hire who takes an interest in preventing Craven from ever discovering the truth.

As the body count rises, it seems everyone who could help Craven turns up dead, yet he relentlessly draws closer and closer to finding out the truth of who was responsible for the death of his daughter. Can he find the answer before he is killed himself?

The answer is mildly surprising, but the trip is what is really entertaining.

If you like action-adventure movies, this is an excellent diversion for a few hours. Winstone is perfection in his role and is perhaps the most well-developed character along the way. If you are surprised that Senator Jim Pine is represented as a Republican you have no concept of the American political scene. If the bad guys being who they are surprises you...well, again, wake up and smell the smoke stacks, my friends.

In the end, it is an entertaining 1:48 and worth seeing on a matinee...or at least on Netflix.

Movie Review: Ninja Assassin

Please, do not misunderstand what I am about to say and think this movie was bloody. After all, this movie has a healthy dose of Ben Miles, whom you might remember from his role as Patrick in the British sitcom Coupling.

I mean, sure, the opening scene where Raizo (Rain) wipes out a gang for no apparent reason is pretty bloody, with severed arms, legs, heads, trunks, and just general spurts of blood fill the screen.

And then there is the bloody training scene.

And the random fight with the other ninja in the laundromat...that has lots of blood.

And the bloody eating scene.

And the other bloody training scene.

Oh, yeah, and then the scene where he is trying to sleep has the bloody feet.

And then there is that one training scene that is pretty bloody.

And of course his first assassination...that one is extremely bloody.

Oh, I almost forgot the other training scene...I guess it was pretty bloody too, now that I think about it.

And the scene where Raizo turns on his master...it is pretty bloody.

And the scene where he is in prison....that is blood-drenched as well.

Oh, and the final battle has more than its share of blood...


On the bright side, you are unlikely to get too lost in the uncomplicated plot. Raizo was going to be the perfect Ninja until Kiriko (Anna Sawai, Kylie Goldstein) shows him he has a heart. When she is killed by the clan, he decides to wreak vengeance on them.

Now that we have the plot out of the way, it is one fight scene after another.

Unfortunately, they went so heavily on the "Ninjas fight in shadows" theme that is becomes a series of flickering movements in the shadows followed by fountains of blood. At times you are not extremely sure if they really needed actors for this movie.

By the time it is over, you figure you have seen your share of blood for the decade, but still are unfulfilled if you thirst for a good fighting movie.

So-so story, few good lines of sight in combat scenes, and a pedestrian ending leave this one for the Netflix pile.

Movie Review:Law Abiding Citizen

Okay, let's get the plot out of the way early. Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) and his family are victims of a random crime that turns horrific when Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte) turns to rape and murder.

At the trial, conviction rate fanatic Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) makes a plea bargain with Darby over the objections of Shelton that puts Darby back on the street quickly while his less guilty accomplice Rupert Ames (Josh Stewart) gets the death penalty.

10 years later, instead of being executed painlessly, Ames has a violent, painful death which, even though he was being executed, makes it murder.

The trail leads to Darby who turns up dead. In a detective role, Assistant DA Rice tracks it back to Shelton who more or less admits to it, and later admits it with great pride.

Bodies start piling up with Shelton in prison as he tries to make his point that the system is broken. Ultimately the question becomes whether Rice can figure out how to stop him before Shelton kills everyone involved in the trial that set free Darby while killing Ames.

This movie is first and foremost a message movie. It is an indictment of a legal system that is more interested in conviction rates than in true justice. Plea deals, phrases such as "It's not what you know, it is what you can prove", the bail system and much more are the agit-prop targets of the film-makers.

However, to get their message across, they needed a platform, and that platform became a drama/action hybrid with some strange directions.

At first you feel sympathy for Shelton. Here is an involved father and dedicated family man who had his family ripped away in a senseless, brutal crime.

Yet as the movie progresses and his murderous rampage goes ever wider...taking in judges, office assistants, defense attorneys, and basically everyone EXCEPT the guy who made the deal, your sympathy starts to fade and instead he seems more like a guy who has lost his mind.

Nor is Rice an overly sympathetic character.

And the conclusion, while what it must be, is disappointing...simply because they went with what "must be" instead of finding a creative, satisfying conclusion that did not undermine the points they were trying to make throughout the whole movie.

The movie was mildly entertaining but nothing anybody should rush out to see which is disappointing because it has a phenomenal cast, the directing was nicely paced and set a good atmosphere, and they avoided the gore while still portraying the brutality that started the whole thing. Ultimately, it was just a weak script and that it was entertaining is a testament to the skills of Foxx, Butler, and director F. Gary Gray.

Wait for Netflix.

Movie Review:Surrogates

Lately there has been a plethora of movies dealing with ethical issues raised by what many anticipate will be the next generation of Sims-style games.

Sometimes, such as in I, Robot (2004) those concerns revolve around the rights "created life-forms" have. More recently, Gamer seemed from the trailers to revolve around the legitimacy of getting people from death row killed in pursuit of a game, though that is pure conjecture...friends warned me it had so many pornographic overtones they walked out and I took their advice and elected not to see it.

Be that as it may, Surrogates takes the concept to another level.

In this world, virtually every person stays at home, wirelessly controlling surrogate androids that go forth and take part in the world. This will free them from the dangers of disease, accidents, and even warfare as shown in one interesting scene where a soldier who has his surrogate "killed" simply receives another unit from a replacement supply along with a stern warning to be careful, because "these things aren't free".

Certainly, there are advantages to living real life entirely by remote control. You can choose how you look, don't have to suffer unpleasant side effects of deviant behavior...after all, if you murder a surrogate, it is just property damage, not actually taking a life...and so forth.

But there are consequences as well. Director Jonathan Mostow certainly allows plenty of time and returns repeatedly to scenes showing the emotional disconnect that comes from having no actual personal contact or interaction...a charge frequently leveled against serious players of Sims or Massively Multi-player Online games such as World of Warcraft and Everquest.

The movie starts with an episodic look at how Surrogates went from conception to something employed by the vast majority of people, though some people rebel at the concept and form Surrogate-free zones.

Soon it jumps into a look at a young man who goes to a club instead of an opera...only to be killed by real human Miles Strickland (Jack Noseworthy).

Greer (Bruce Willis) and his partner Peters (Radha Mitchell) must solve the murder which leads to a tangled web of deception as they discover someone has invented a weapon which makes it possible to kill the user by killing the surrogate.

More and more powerful forces try to keep Greer from accomplishing his mission until at the end he is faced with a choice; save the surrogates and allow dis-figured and disabled people to live "normal" lives or allow their destruction to force people to act on their own.

The movie is pretty entertaining, has a couple nice action set-pieces and may surprise you at a turn or two...though the clues are there to let you know what is coming.

It is pretty weird seeing the Surrogate version of Willis with the goofy hair and no wrinkles..in fact, at some point the distinct lack of wrinkles on the surrogates almost becomes a character itself.

Is the immersion in virtual and alternate reality worlds a negative thing? How far is too far? These are questions the movie will raise and have no doubt; the writers and director have an answer.

Movie Review:9

If someone told you they wanted you to see a movie with cool animation, some nice special effects, tremendous voice over talent, and an idiotic story, would you go see it?

9 (2009) follows 9 (Elijah Wood) from his "creation" through his coming to life through his first adventure. Let me sum up the plot:

From a plot sense, 9 is brought to life to bring to life The Monster which he keeps the other animated burlap bags from destroying because if they destroy it then the burlap bags the Monster has eaten will not be able to be brought back, so instead he uses a device to destroy the machine which then frees the burlap bags...to fly away and be gone forever.

Huh?

Don't destroy it so you can destroy it...


This plot had no point.

Okay, if you want a stretch a point, since each numbered burlap bag represented "some part of the human soul" I suppose you could argue Shane Acker (story) and Pamela Pettler (screenplay) are making some morality tale about which elements of the human soul they find worthwhile while simultaneously complaining about advancing technology...highly ironic since the movie is a technological masterpiece...but that is pushing it.

It also misses a key point; to push a morality tale, you have to intrigue the audience enough to care. When you make a vaguely entertaining movie that has a contradictory plot and a lousy denouement, you end up with 9:an unsatisfying, disappointing cinematic effort.

Stay away from this one.

Movie Review: G.I.Joe:The The Rise of Cobra

For whatever reason, movies that spark the nostalgia of childhood always strike my fancy and rank high on my list of movies I am excited to see. Certainly the third installment in the Ice Age franchise was greatly anticipated, and Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen ranked as must-see cinema for me.

The only reason GI Joe did not rank that was was because this franchise went off the rails in the previews. Whereas the comics I recall and the cartoon when I was able to watch it were more or less set in a "real physics" universe, albeit with A-Team like sparsity of casualties despite constant warfare and gunfire.

Yet in the pre-view they have the absolutely idiotic "Delta 6 Accelerator Suits" which allow them to dodge missiles. Whatever. It was at that moment this tent-pole wannabe franchise went off the rails for me.

I had very conflicted feelings about seeing it. I was going to hate the straying from the "feel" of the GI JOE lore but it did look like a pretty good action flick. Still, it is GI JOE and has a huge brand-name cast so off I went. I was totally prepared to hate this movie.

The flick starts bizarrely in 1641 Medieval France where James McCullen (David Murray) has been arrested by the French for selling weapons to their enemies. Thus the McCullen clan habit of arms dealing and selling weapons to both sides was established.

Click to modern day where General Hawk (Dennis Quaid) is watching a modern day McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) tell NATO of the nanomite warheads he has developed for no apparent reason.

This is one of the myriad of non-sensical plot holes you must ignore if you are to enjoy this movie. Why, exactly, the "peace-keeping" mission of NATO suddenly has them independently paying for Doomsday weapons is never addressed in any way, shape or form. Moving on, nothing to see here but the ripped, torn, bleeding carcass of a gazelle that wandered into a lion pride.

The task of transporting these warheads from Kurgystan or some such random country (see above plot hole comment; why a Scotsmen working for NATO has his lab there is...well...best not to think about it. You won't like the answer anyway.) is assigned to Duke (Channing Tatum) , Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) and their team of anonymous casualties.

Enter the forces of the Baroness (Sienna Miller) and Storm Shadow (Byung-Hun Lee) who try to seize the briefcase, only to be foiled by Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and some other Joe I cannot remember.

Yes, the characters are introduced so fast and in such large bunches that they are hard to remember...but I am okay with that as at least they were true to that part of the Joe lore. As well as all of them having nick-names, though why Duke is Duke and Ripcord Ripcord prior to becoming Joes is another intriguing mystery best left unexplored.

From there the story takes off. The scenes of exposition are few and far between and widely spaced between some rather intense set-piece action scenes, long chases, huge explosions, and the requisite and awesome Snake Eyes versus Storm Shadow one on one combats which should satisfy any fan of sword play...unless, of course, the viewer has seen the movies from which their fight scenes seem to be almost directly ported over.

It is an open question whether the heavy references in this movie to other movies are "tributes", "homages" or "plagiarism". For your intellectual integrity, do not compare the missile dodging scene to any other recent high profile movies based on toy franchises that had a massive city battle which saw missiles fired at two figures in full chase mode who then contort wildly to avoid them...

There were so many references to many famous movies. In fact, they cribbed so heavily from Black Hawk Down that instead of simply re-shooting scenes down to the same camera angles...they simply took footage from it as you see in the final credits.

In case it is not obvious, even after seeing it I am highly conflicted about this movie.

As a GI JOE movie, it blew great hairy chunks of monkey under arm pit sweat. The unworldly physics of the Accelerator suits, the stupidity of the nanomites and various "pistol that blows up a city block...no wait, it sniper-level hits just the intended target...no wait, it blows up 2 widely dispersed enemies and the entire wall behind them" weapons, the death of a major, major part of the JOE lore...these are major strikes against it.

Not to mention they use the tag line "GI JOE:A Real American Hero" even though it is deliberately an international task force based in Egypt. Oh, and the American President has a very thick, obvious, and not American accent.

At the same time, as an action movie this may have been even more adrenaline-pumped and action packed than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or even Live Free or Die Hard. The action scenes are long, packed, photographed well with very little of the annoying bouncing that has been all the rage lately. These are action scenes that are filmed so well you can actually, you know....see what is happening. That is outstanding.

But on the negative side are the repeat jokes and the bad acting. Example A: When Cobra attacks in the desert, the camels sense the under-the-surface invasion and react to it. When the Joes attack the Cobra base, the Polar Bear senses the under-the-surface invasion and reacts to it. Tit-for-tat, take that.

And the acting...oh, what happened? Way back when the abominable Punisher:Warzone was out, I complained about the cheesy, cartoon-like acting of Dominic West in the role of primary villain and how it really detracted from what was very nearly a really good Punisher movie.

Enter The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who apparently disagrees with me. His walk, his gestures, his vocal inflections...until I looked up the credits I actually thought it was Dominic West. His cartoonish acting was extremely distracting. In his "homage" costume to Star Wars and Hellboy he decided to reference one of the more disappointing Comic Genre movies in recent memory? Why was this allowed?

Marlon Wayans is also pretty uneven, going from playing it straight and in the feel of most of the cast to getting in touch with his prat-fall Three Stooges homage side.

The change of heart Scarlett has is not sold particularly well either, but that is part of having perhaps too many sub-plots.

Ironically, I prefer my movies, even popcorn-fests such as this one, to have a variety of story-lines...provided the director takes the time to develop them and they make sense.

In this case, Director Stephen Sommers was so busy over-using the tired and true (not a typo) flashback device so often used to cover weak story-telling to actually develop current stories.

So in the end we have a real mish-mash. It is a great action flick with a couple real poor performances, interesting but not fascinating story, a nice twist that you may or may not see coming, and a curious (probable) death to a well-loved character and other abuses of the franchise that simultaneously manages to be great and horrific at the same time.

If you insist on your "GI Joe" lore matching the canon, save the 40 bucks a night at the movies will cost you. If you love action movies, go see it today. If you are indifferent...well, you might get distracted.

Movie Review: Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen

Many people hate the directing of Michael Bay. He uses a lot of explosions, high-energy set-pieces, sensuous camera angles, and so forth to cover for some shaky scripts. He has developed a style that falls enough into the realm of the auteur that he is even being mocked for it on You-tube.

On the other hand, with Bay you know what you are going to get and he seldom fails to deliver. In Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen he has the source material that fits his style. The original cartoon was never overly long on story line and plot but made up for it with a lot of high-octane action. Enter Michael Bay.

Revenge of the Fallen is everything you would expect. Action-packed, full of one-liners, full of plot holes and thoroughly enjoyable. It starts slowly, but once it gets going it doesn't slow down.

The plot is simple; Ancient Decepticon  "The Fallen" wants to return to power. To do that, the last Optimus must be slain. Once that happens, he will be freed to go to earth, find a machine that will kill the sun, and get that power for himself. Meanwhile, the knowledge of The Cube has been internalized by Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf).

So the Decepticons are chasing Sam who is being protected by Bumblebee and accompanied by Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox). Along the way, the specialized military task force has several battles with the Decepticons and the epic conclusion is a long-running battle that delivers everything you would expect from a Michael Bay flick: hot women, big guns, rapid cuts, numerous explosions, and a happy conclusion.

Along the way we encounter a lot of new Transformers that call back the glory days of the cartoon. We see Constructobots, Dinobots, and several others including a wise-cracking duo that get the best lines in the movie.

If you are looking for an intellectual, thought-provoking movie with something to say about today's society, skip this movie. But if you want an action-packed, fun filled action-adventure with a lot of combat, laughs, and fun, go see it. Twice.

Movie Review: The Proposal

We got there early for the sneak peak at the insistence of the Goose. The theatre was filling fast and I said in mild surprise, "I am surprised this many people want to see this train wreck."

"Train wreck? What do you mean? It looks good!"

I smiled. "Well, yeah, it is a rom-com, but it breaks too many rules. Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock don't get to play their normal characters, it is the girl who gets rid of the guy only to realize he was what she wanted....it is a tough sell."

Time to eat my words.

Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) is the same character Reynolds pretty much always plays. He is the suave, sophisticated, egotistical jackass who has just enough charm to get the girls to swoon.

Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock), on the other hand, is a different character for recent vintage Sandra Bullock. Gone is the clumsy, sweet, slightly overwhelmed charm girl and in its place is the Ice Princess, a callback to Meryl Streep's wench in The Devil Wears Prada.

The story line is one you have seen before a bunch of times; dominating personality and talented but soul-crushed partner are forced into close proximity, think they hate each other, end up falling in love and getting married.

The contrived plot is unfortunate, because there are several elements in the background that, if explored more deeply, would add depth and texture to what ultimately becomes a mildly touching romp through the normal points a rom-com genre movie should hit.

I would love to see more time spent on the tension between Andrew and his dad Joe, ably played by Joe T. Nelson. They have great chemistry and you definitely believe there is a story and history there. Sometimes those "we have history" scenes are brutal and transparent and can ruin what might otherwise be a watchable movie (for example, the "fireman prank" and "stories of past events together" scenes in the execrable Ladder 49 combined with the horrific acting of Joaquin Phoenix combined to make it a movie that hopefully you don't recognize). In this case, the scenes felt very real and drew you in.

The movie is very well placed, has several hysterically awesome scenes that had people laughing loud enough that you could not catch all the dialogue. That is an excellent sign.

It also shows that Anne Fletcher is an excellent director. She is obviously well versed in the uses of the Kuleshov effect, and her excellent reaction shots bring the movie from predictable and serviceable to extremely enjoyable and worth seeing again should opportunity arise.

Overall, this movie delivered with gorgeous scenery, plentiful laughs, a fun story, and a satisfying conclusion. If you enjoy romantic comedies, go see it.

Movie Review:Up

Up has been heavily marketed for quite some time. The early pictures of a house flying on balloons coupled with more recent commercials showing some funny moments from the movie made it quite clear what this was; a light-hearted, fun, funny movie mostly targeted at the younger demographic.

And so it starts out to be. The sequences of young Carl Fredricksen (Jeremy Leary) worshipping his adventuresome idol Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) and meeting the equally star-struck and hysterical Ellie (Elie Docter) are everything you were expecting.

You are quickly drawn into the story. The plot is fast-moving, the jokes plentiful, and the classic Disney heart/charm fully in place.

Spoiler Alert

Then, something funny happens. There is a sequence that is quite heart-breaking. With schmaltzy music, they do a montage of Carl and Ellie growing up, getting married, getting ready to have a baby...and then the baby dying, probably a miscarriage. Then Ellie dies.

What? Seriously? It is not that death has not entered feel-good animation before...in Finding Nemo the mother fish and all but one egg are killed. But that was off-screen and by implication. 

Okay, so technically it is off-screen and by implication here, too, but it is much more heavy-handed and with tremendous impact. Not a few snuffles were heard in the theatre, and rightfully so.

On the one hand, that is a very good thing. It means you care about the lead characters. On the other hand...it just did not feel right for a movie targeted at the younger set.

End of Spoiler

Now in his retirement years, Carl (Edward Asner) is ready to move on. He decides to complete his childhood promise to Ellie to go to Paradise Falls where Muntz disappeared. This is where the famous house on balloons scenes come in.

Along with young do-gooder Russell (Jordan Nagai) who stows away unintentionally, he flies to South America. The rest of the movie is primarily his struggle to get the house to the dream location.

Problems crop up when a mysterious bird and several dogs get involved, leading Carl to get involved in the fight to protect the bird, Kevin, from a mysterious pack of dogs with collars that allow them to talk.

Eventually he meets the villain, changes his mind, helps Russell and Kevin battle the villains and brings it all home to a satisfying conclusion.

This movie works on many levels. It has a solid message about realizing that the dream you thought you had may not be the one you get, but that does not mean you should be disappointed. It also carried a nice message about not being so caught up in your own wants that you forget to care for and help others.

It also provided plenty of humor and had a nice story line that was quite entertaining while also being full of heart. The animation was well done, the characters fun and engaging and, most importantly, likable.

If you like good animation and/or soft comedy, this movie is an excellent choice and I highly recommend it.

Movie Review:Night at the Museum:Battle of the Smithsonian

This movie was marketed as a comedy. That was the highlight of all the trailers, with things like the critique of Darth Vader (...simplify. You have too much going on. Your evil, your asthmatic, your a robot. And what's with the cape. Are we going to the opera? I don't think so..") and The Thinker being a self-absorbed body builder.

Unfortunately, if you have seen the trailer you have seen all the funny parts. You have seen all the screen time Vader gets. You have seen  the Custer/Pocahontas scene. The laughs are over.

Left behind are 105 torturous minutes of call-backs to the original that add nothing to the story and are not funny...they seem to be there simply because a call-back is a means to an end in and of itself..., action sequences that end up being silly, and waiting for the villains to do something vaguely villainous. 

For example, the villains pursuing the heroes have spears, lances, tommy guns, and other weapons yet continually allow themselves to get into hissy-fit pushing and shoving fights. What? That makes no sense at all!

Instead they repeatedly capture Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) and then let him wander off whenever he chooses. He and Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) tour the Smithsonian trying to find the code to the tablet. 

If you like seeing famous bits of art interact with people you might enjoy this movie. If you like laughs, good action scenes, intelligent dialogue, a plot that makes sense, or good movies then you probably won't.

Movie Review: X-Men Origins:Wolverine

To say I was not a fan of the X-Men movies is to make a major understatement. I essentially class them in the same way I class the 2003 abomination The Hulk by Ang Lee or The Fantastic Four:Rise of the Silver Surfer or Superman Returns.

All of these may very well be good movies but it is hard to say; they are horrible SUPER-HERO movies. There is a time and place for cerebral movies and they can be very good. But when you ignore what a franchise is about, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot. Or higher.

To be sure the X-men franchise has much to say about discrimination, tolerance, and so forth. The problem is, they forgot to appeal to much of their fan-base. A Super-Hero movie requires super action. 

For example, The Dark Knight had a lot to say about what happens when good people do nothing, about testing boundaries, and about the value of reality versus perception. However, it did what a movie should do; it first entertained in ways that appealed to its fan base, then allowed the message to develop naturally out of that instead of the message coming first and entertainment being left behind.

As a result, I had very low expectations for X-Men Origins:Wolverine. There were certain signs the movie might not disappoint. Throughout the franchise he was consistently the most entertaining character and his popularity among comic book fanboys cannot be overstated. Therefore, there was at least a passing chance the movie might be more super-hero oriented and less cerebral.

The movie starts in the 1800s with the event where Logan (Hugh Jackman) first reveals his powers and learns his friend Victor (Liev Schreiber) is actually his brother.

We then run through a montage of the brothers fighting in war after war until they are made part of a secret organization doing undercover work. Certain incidents finally cause Logan to have enough and he breaks away from the group after they commit an act reminiscent of My Lai, though this one is in Africa.

We then see Logan living a happy life with Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins). This life is soon shattered when one of the former group shows up killing former members of the team and team lead William Stryker (Danny Huston) comes looking for Logan to help.

When he proves incapable of defeating the menace he undergoes the surgery that replaces his bone claws with adamantium, making him all but invincible. However, he then has to face Weapon XI, a mutant with all the abilities of every mutant the villain has been able to get his hands on.

I tried not to reveal too much of the twists, though to be fair I saw every one of them coming. My movie-going partners did not see one of the twists, and you might not either but you very well may.

Wolverine has everything you look for in a super-hero genre flick. There is plenty of action, a good story that moves along at a good clip, a solid resolution and it makes sense within its own universe.

For those familiar with either the X-Men comic books or even the recent movies, there are plenty of Easter Eggs to find much like the fabled Captain America references in Iron Man. The movie has a wry sense of humor and a good sense of how to appeal to action fans without dumbing down the story past the level of cave-man intelligence.

For action fans, comic book fans, and super hero fans, this movie is a must-see.