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: 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: 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:Iron-Man 2

Comic books went through a massive change from their inception. Much early fare was basic escapist entertainment with outlandish story lines, fantastical feats of derring-do, and campy stories that delivered a high fun factor.

As the mood of the nation changed, so did the super hero comic. By the late 80s or early 90s it seemed many titles focused more on the personal, typically angst-driven problems of the titular hero with the action scenes providing the next beat in that story, almost secondary to the main point of the book.

In that period, when they were trying to be taken as a serious medium, they delved deeply into a variety of social issues and causes. For some, this was a wonderful thing. For others, they started to miss the fun factor that made the medium special.

That is not a criticism that can be leveled at Iron Man 2. The fun factor is high, the action sequences numerous and spectacular, the violence at near spaghetti western levels, and the scenery...just gorgeous.

Director Jon Favreau has a great eye for spectacular, eye-pleasing moments that border on the iconic, a sly sense of humor, and a talent for bringing out the best in his well-populated star list. Perhaps the moment that best displays this is the Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in the donut.
From a story standpoint, Iron Man is excellent. The basic storyline is nothing spectacular, nor are any of the sub-plots taken individually...but when melded together they provide a very nice texture to frame an overall effect that has re-watchability.

Additionally, they show a knowledge of and respect for the fans of the comic book. This is shown by little things such as Stark using the phrase "war machine" in regards to the suit Rhoades (Don Cheadle) is wearing that had a brief run as its own comic titled War Machine. It was a very nice touch.

It is one reason the movie works on many levels. The non-comic fan gets a big, bold action-adventure. The comic fan gets to see little bits and pieces of the Marvel Universe on the big screen with homages to the "canon".

From a cinematography standpoint, I think most viewers can find many things to enjoy. The scenery...whether nature or the inhabitants...is often spectacular and easy on the eyes. (When Stark says of Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johannsen), "I want one", many viewers probably already had that thought when they saw the Ironettes).

If you go into this expecting Schindler's List you will deservedly be disappointed. But if you go in expecting one-liners, double-entendres, over-the top action, gorgeous visuals, and a lot of fun you will love it.

Of course, being me, I have to find SOMETHING I did not love about this movie; how, exactly, did the rather light-weighing Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) manage to haul around a suitcase containing a full Iron Man suit? How did Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) make and retain all his money if nothing he makes works?

Those, of course, are things that are irrelevant. Just roll with them.

On the other end of the spectrum are two nice surprises for fans of the Marvel Universe...one being the sighting of Captain America's shield and the other...well, stay through the end of the credits. Nice teaser to be found there.

If you like fun movies with beautiful people and high-octane action, great special effects and fun...this movie is a must-see.

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: 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: 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.

Movie Review:The Spirit

Frank Miller is infatuated with color schemes of black and white with splashes of red. In The Spirit he uses these to great effect. As a director he has a great eye for stunning visuals and iconic moments. As a writer he has a wry, twisted sense of humor that translates well to the stylized movies he likes to put out.

The Spirit (Gabriel Macht) is a super-hero whose primary super-power is his ability to repeatedly come back from death. He acts as a sort of detective/spy for the police force while battling his arch-nemesis the Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), a villain who has the same ability and a wicked sense of humor.

For example, the Octopus has a bizarre preoccupation with eggs. He also has a never-ending series of cloned minions (Louis Lombardi) that die with regularity only to come back with new names ending in -os; Pathos, ethos, Adios (the last one we see) and, after one long monologue about not getting egg on his face, he names his next minion Huevos...Spanish for egg.

The Octopus is trying to attain the blood of Heracles to make himself immortal. Silken Floss (Scarlett Johannsen) is is assistant trying to pay her way through college. Sand Saref (Eva Mendes) is tyring to attain Jason's Golden Fleece because it is shiny. The Spirit is trying to end crime in his city.

That is about it as far as story, which is fine. This is a pretty action-filled romp with occasional spots of humor and some outstanding visuals. If you like those sorts of movies, you will love The Spirit. 

Movie Review:The Transporter 3

Jason Statham is quietly building a very respectable action star resume. A lot of that comes from the Transporter series. 

They all have similarities. Statham plays Frank Martin, a former military special forces guy who works as a transporter. He gets details from people regarding weights, package sizes, and price. He shows up, picks up the package, and delivers it. No questions, no modifications to the deal, no problems.

Obviously he runs into enough problems to have made 3 movies. They are not intended to be realistic. However, if you like high-octane adventure stories with a lot of car chases (and in this case bike chases), improbable stunts that are eye-catching and pleasing, basic plots that give you a clear-cut bad guy and plenty of fun, then these movies should work very well for you.

Frank, as usual, relies on Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) to do the technical work and be his ace in the hole as he works to deliver the package. In a surprise to nobody in the audience, the package turns out to be the girl Valentina (Natalya Rudakova).

Frank drives maniacally to elude everyone chasing him, puts on a couple very entertaining martial arts shows, demonstrates the agility of his car, and saves the day.

The one quibble would be the mystery of the appearing window. Sure, the movie is not meant to be realistic. Nevertheless, there was still the glaring continuity error of the window Frank kicks out reappearing and disappearing during the gas station stop, only to reappear for good. 

*Sigh*.

When that is the biggest quibble...it was an entertaining flick. If you like action or car chases or bike chases, this movie will entertain you.

Movie Review:Bolt

From the first trailers I have looked forward to seeing Bolt (2008), a non-Pixar Disney animated feature. The wait was worth it.

Bolt (John Travolta) is a puppy rescued from a shelter by Penny (Miley Cyrus). 5 years later, he is the star of a television show aptly titled Bolt. Bolt and Penny, in an aggressive knock-off of Inspector Gadget Meets Lassie, engage in adventures to find Dr. Calico (Malcolm McDowell) who kidnapped Penny's father and sends endless hordes of helicopters, motorcycles, and henchman to capture Penny.

Each carefully scripted episode is done to keep Bolt from realizing he is acting. As a result, he thinks the adventures are real and he has superpowers; he can leap incredible distances, melt things with his heat vision, and has a super-bark.

One day the network demands a change in format so the next episode ends in a cliff-hanger that leaves Penny captured. Bolt, desperate to rescue her, escapes. Through an entertaining series of events, he is air-mailed from Hollywood to New York.

There, he captures the cat Mittens (Susie Essman) and together they begin making their way back to Hollywood. Along the way they pick up Rhino (Mark Walton), a Hamster who loves the show Bolt and believes Bolt has super powers.

Numerous jokes ensue as the trio makes their way across country. Along the way Mittens stops being a captive and starts being a friend, Bolt figures out he is not really super-powered and starts being a "real dog" and the jokes fly fast and furious. Ultimately he rescues Penny, Mittens and Rhino find a home, and everyone is happy.

This movie works on many levels. It is cute for the kids, funny for the adults, and has a nice, if predictable, story. The pigeons will remind many of the Animaniacs and certainly add to the story. The surface message about cats and dogs getting along (different breeds, different people) is nice and heart-warming.

The underlying message is better, though. Enough already of 2 things; 1) thinking the audience has to have totally committed actors, the price is too high, and 2) let kids have real childhoods. Stop pushing them so hard.

Overall, a very good experience. Go see it or I will send Rhino to snap your neck.

Movie Review: Madagascar:Escape to Africa

Every so often there is a movie preview that has you laughing, has you thinking, "This is going to be a great movie that I will love!" Then the movie comes along, you watch it, and head home for a long bath as you try to clean off the stench of the disappointment. Meet Madagascar (2005), a movie that had tremendous vocal talent, a good premise, great trailers, and a horrible script. It was lacking laughs and, while on a later viewing may not cause me to want to gouge out my eyeballs for merely having seen it, was at first blush a huge, Shrek the Third-like disappointment, though it did precede the latter title which shall not be named again here.

The previews for Madagascar:Escape to Africa (2008) were merely okay. Maybe my standards of expectations were lowered by having seen the first train wreck, but be that as it may, this was a movie I wanted to see. 

The best elements from the first movie were not only retained, they were turned into the focal point. We got to see much more of the Penguin commando team, the debonair-yet-repulsive monkeys, Melman's (David Schwimmer) compulsiveness, the interplay between Marty (Chris Rock) and Alex (Ben Stiller) with the fun-loving nature of Marty in full effect full effect full effect full effect...see the movie, that joke actually makes sense. 

Even Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen) gets an expanded role, and it is much funnier than his first, though I do not know there is another "I like to Move it move it" song in this one to catch people's attention.

This movie has some killer visuals, with great animation, tight dialogue, a good story that will keep you interested and entertained. There are some great cameos from the first movie you might not expect and ultimately the simple yet heart-warming story comes to a nice conclusion. This is definitely a sequel that blows away the original from an entertainment standpoint.

Movie Review:Eagle Eye

If there is anything we have learned from movies like Terminator, I Robot, and so forth, it is that computers designed to make people happy will ultimately turn on the people and attempt to conquer/kill/make slaves of them.

If there is anything we have learned from movies such as Enemy of the State, The Handmaids' Tale, or 1984 it is that governments with access to surveillance technology will mis-use and abuse those powers.

If there is anything we have learned from a century of Hollywood it is that the industry is derivative.

Hence we have Eagle Eye (2008), the convergence of Terminator, I Robot, Enemy of the State, and 1984.

The movie starts by following Jerry Damon Shaw (Shia LaBeouf), a shiftless slacker who scams his co-workers out of small stakes at poker, hasn't seen his brother in a couple years, and refuses to accept money from his apparently well-off family even though he is behind on rent and overdrawn at the bank.

We also meet Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan), a struggling single mother sending off her son Sam (Cameron Boyce) to Washington DC on a band tour.

Together the two of them are manipulated into a series of set-piece action bits that are highly entertaining. At one point, in a field in the middle of nowhere, falling electrical powerlines create the danger in a scene eerily reminiscent of the famous crop-duster scene in North by Northwest. Oddly, one thing never resolved is how a computer could force those power lines to snap and fall...but if you are going to investigate plot holes, this movie is the wrong one for you.

Instead, it is a glitzy, fast-paced, adrenaline packed thrill fest with a mild shock as to who the villain is and why Jerry and Damon are the victims.

Meanwhile, they are being chased by Agent Thomas Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton), a sharp minded yet ineffectual pursuer who is always one step behind. In the big finale he provides the opportunity and motivation for Jerry to make the last-second save to keep the entire command structure of the U.S. from being killed using a rather clever bomb designed to combine Sam's trombone with a diamond necklace worn by Rachel.

The movie is entertaining and will leave you smiling. Sure, it takes the bounds of reality and believability and stretches them like Homer Simpson's all-you-can-eat pants...but that is beside the point. It is designed to critique the Patriot Act and over the top government surveillance while providing an entertaining action flick. It delivers on that premise in spades.

The acting is very well done, particularly by Billy Bob Thornton. He tends to take some quirky roles in off-beat movies...Bad Santa, Sling Blade, Bandits...and yet he can deliver in a serious role such as this one. LaBeouf is generally entertaining if somewhat one-note in his delivery and Monaghan, despite some cheesy lines, delivered on what she had to work with.

With the exception of the first chase scene the photography was excellent. In fact, my biggest quibble with the movie was the use of many jump cuts to create tension rather than showing what was going on. I thought that section was very poorly edited. They made up for it later with some spectacular shots so all is forgiven.

If you are a fan of the Action genre, take a look, you will like this movie.

Movie Review:Body of Lies

The previews for Body of Lies (2008) seemed to be built around the conceit that either Roger Ferris (Leonardo DeCaprio) or Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) was a mole in the CIA who was actually working for the terrorists. This assumption of course could not be made by anyone who has read the book it is based on, but that is beside the point.

While action packed, Body  takes a while to hit its stride. Ferris is a knowledgeable Middle East operative who works under Hoffman. Hoffman tends to keep his field operatives in the dark and run multiple operations simultaneously, some of which interfere with each other.

When Ferris tries to bring in an informant, Hoffman refuses. The informant is caught so Ferris kills him so he cannot reveal who Ferris is. Against Hoffman's orders, he and his partner go to raid a safe house. The partner ends up getting killed and Ferris badly hurt. When he recovers he heads to Jordan where he falls for an Iranian nurse named Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani). Meanwhile, the head of Jordanian security named Hani (Mark Strong)  and Ferris try to work together. Repeated interference by Hoffman causes them massive problems. It comes to a head when Hani will not turn over control of his informant inside the terrorist cell to Hoffman. First, however, Hani and Ferris work together on a safe house project.

Together they try to track users of an Al Quaeda splinter group safe house in an attempt to find mastermind terrorist Al-Saleem (Alon Abutbul). When the safe house is burned down they lose their lead. Convinced Ferris knew about the operation Hoffman had ordered that caused the disaster, Hani throws Ferris out of Jordan. 

Ferris concocts a plan to make an innocent architect named Omar Sadiki (Ali Suliman) look like a terrorist mastermind in an attempt to make Al-Saleem reveal himself out of jealousy. The plan works to an extent but Al-Saleem kills Sadiki when he realizes Sadiki was a pawn. 

Sickened by the mounting losses, Ferris is on the edge of quitting when Aisha is captured. He tried to exchange himself for her. As Saleem and his men prepare to torture Ferris to death, Hani makes the last second rescue. 

Sickened by the continued disposal of innocent people by Hoffman's methods, Ferris quits to stay in Jordan with (presumably) Aisha. 

The action in this movie is excellent, the web of deceit often hard to untangle (I deliberately left out a couple of twists that may or may not surprise you) and the various considerations of each character make enough sense to keep you intrigued with the movie beginning to end. If you like action movies, this is a good choice. If you like thrillers, it is a good choice. If you just like good stories with a bit more complexity than the average cinematic fare, this is the right choice. Overall, a very entertaining flick. 

Movie Review: The House Bunny

Sometimes you see a movie review and think, "Wow, here is a train wreck I don't want to get within a mile of" but circumstances beyond your control combine to lure you in anyway. As a thirty-something married male I think it is safe to say I am not the target audience for The House Bunny (2008). Nevertheless, off I went to see it.

The opening scenes had a few laughs but were mostly just setting up the character of Shelly (Anna Faris) whose talents lie more in having a hot body, beautiful face, and skills at being sensual than they do in the areas of having a functioning brain.

When the machinations of another Playboy Bunny lead to Shelly thinking she has been kicked out of the house she finds herself homeless and directionless. She lands at a sorority house full of over the top "individualists".

She then shows them how to be more attractive to boys...primarily by wearing fewer clothes, more make-up, and gyrating their hips and breasts while demonstrating less intelligence. Meanwhile, her own attempts to romance Oliver (Colin Hanks) fall flat as she goofs up again and again. At one point after the transformation of the girls is complete there is a "coming out"scene where they show off their new sexy looks.

Ultimately the situation at the Playboy Mansion is straightened out, she is allowed to move back but instead elects to stay at the Sorority House where everyone has learned they don't need to dress provocatively...they just need to be themselves. And yes, it works for Shelly and Oliver as well...

This is not a particularly deep movie but it is a very entertaining one. Shelly has line after line that are hilarious and quotable. In the end, it is just good fun with a surprisingly large number of laughs and a nice feel-good conclusion.

I think you will see from the pictures pretty much the main theme of the movie visually. They try to attach a weak, "Oh, just be yourself" moral at the tail end but it is at best tacked on. Nobody returns to their anti-social modes of dress or over the top nerdiness, but rather retains some of the more typical modes of dress and less negative attitudes in order to remain close enough to mainline society to be likable. This is definitely not a socially conscious movie but it is an entertaining one.

The Dark Knight

Warning: SPOILER ALERT
This review contains one or more images you should not see until you have seen The Dark Knight (2008).

Ever since Batman Begins (2005) there has been anticipation for the sequel. As word of the powerhouse performance of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker spread, that anticipation only increased. Now, at last, The Dark Knight (2008) is upon us. As you can see from the opening picture, the visuals are stunning. They are stunning throughout the movie and that is just the beginning.

Taking up shortly after the events of Batman Begins, Dark Knight finds a lot of Batman impersonators on the streets. They are almost as dangerous to themselves as they are to the Batman (Christian Bale) and even cause him some difficulties in the opening sequences as he deals with The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy).

As an aside...it is kind of sad to see a potentially tough Batman villain such as the Scarecrow turned into a throw-away piece...he is dispatched as easily in this movie as any of the dozens or hundreds of thugs that Batman deals with. In Batman Begins he was, if not on the level of Villain, at least a strong Minion, well above the level of mere henchman or thug. He might even be considered a mere Hooligan in this movie and it will be hard for him to ever serve a role as viable threat to the Batman in the current franchise.

Be that as it may, we are also introduced to a true villain, the ultimate Batman arch-nemesis, the Joker. He is at his dastardly best in this one. His opening gambit to steal huge quantities of cash from the local mobsters includes having his gang members kill each other with him killing the final member. His trademark is inventive killings.

It is established early on that this is not the comedic Joker of the Batman television camp but owes a great deal to the psychopath Joker of Jack Nicholson in Batman (1989). And the Joker will prove to be a worthy opponent. He seems to always be not one but two steps ahead of the police, the mob, and even the Batman. He has a sick, sadistic sense of humor and causes lots of destruction. He dominates not just every scene he is in but also a lot of scenes he is not in.

All of which makes this even more amazing. The Dark Knight has nothing to do with the Joker. In case you missed that, let me repeat it. The Joker is irrelevant to this movie. He is the ultimate McGuffin.

The Dark Knight is about temptation, about endurance. Can the Batman be corrupted? Can Harvey Dent be a White Knight to Batman's Dark Knight and render him unnecessary? Those are the questions that intrigue director Christopher Nolan. Remember how in Batman Begins Batman won't kill Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) or, more tellingly, Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson)...but he DOES choose not to save him? In The Dark Knight the question is will he kill the Joker to end the Joker's crime spree? As the Joker explicitly questions him, the Batman's entire story line is summed up in this one line; "And tonight, you are going to break your one rule."

Batman must choose whether to kill or allow killing to continue yet that has always been his one rule. He breaks laws at will. For example, he invades sovereign air space and kidnaps a foreign national in violation of dozens of laws. He beats the Joker to a pulp during an "interrogation". He removes evidence from a crime scene after 2 cops are shot. He drives an unlicensed, definitely not street legal Batmobile (and, later, Batbike)

But it is not just the Batman facing a moral dilemma. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) also faces a crisis. Seemingly incorruptible and fearless, he refuses to acquiesce to the Joker's demands and continues his job as District Attorney of putting mob members behind bars. Yet there are signs that he is perhaps a bit corruptible. He flips a 2-headed coin to determine choices "by chance". This reliance would become his trademark after one of the Joker's diabolical schemes resulted in a major change in Dent's life. In one moment his intended wife Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhal) is killed and he is turned into Two Face.

Two Face, of course, is a major Batman villain. Half good, half evil, he uses a coin to decide...the same 2-headed coin, only now one side is scarred in the same explosion.

So how is it that even though he dominates the screen and creates a major villain that the Joker doesn't matter? Just take a look at that picture. All the money the Joker stole is in that pile. So is all the moneybelonging to the mob. And the money was set on fire by the Joker. Money means nothing to him. Power means nothing to him. He explicitly tells both Dent and the Batman that his entire purpose is anarchy, to test them, to see if he can break them and create anarchy. He has no motivation of his own other than that of the writers and directors: to move the story along. Now, to be fair, he does this admirably. But he is completely a red herring. The movie is not about catching the Joker...it is about looking at the character of the Batman, Dent, and Dawes and seeing who will stay true to their character.

Fortunately, it is an entertaining journey. Filled with powerhouse performances, high-octane action, and thought provoking story lines for everyone from the major characters down to supporting characters like Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine). If you like Batman as a character, Super Hero movies, action movies, or just plain entertainment, you have to see this flick.

Wanted

Remember C3Po? The annoying, whining, simpering weasel that just made you want to throw something at the screen? You thought that was the most annoying hero character until the arrival of someone even more annoying...

Yeah, you knew who I meant. Jar Jar out-C3PO'd old goldenrod himself. On the bright side, he was not as whiny or simpering as the tin man but he was indeed annoying.

Fortunately for all movie lovers Jar Jar and C3PO essentially ended their run with the probable end of the Star Wars franchise. I mean, sure, The Clone Wars animated feature is slated to come out later this year but since Lucas is not directing it we should be safe from whiny, simpering primary characters. Meanwhile, let's go check out a movie slated to be a gunfire filled festival of fast cars, fast women, and fast shooting, Wanted (2008).

Meet the hero of Wanted (2008). Oh, not the gun wielding, maniacal driving cool headed Fox (Angelina Jolie). No, I am referring to the unbelievably whiny, simpering slug covering his head with his hands standing next to her. Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is the protagonist of the piece.














He is the food tube occupying a cubicle in a job that, in context of this movie, is pretty meaningless. When super assassin Cross (Thomas Kretsschmann) tries to kill Wesley he is protected and rescued by Fox.

Fox then brings him to the Fraternity, an ancient group of assassins who get their commands of whom to kill from binary code in the weaving. No word yet on how, exactly, people interpreted binary code in the middle ages...but then again, worrying about plot holes will destroy this movie. Otherwise, how can you explain people capable of firing through car windows, donut holes, cans of soda, turning 8 or 10 corners and hitting their target 2 miles away inside a building...yet need visibility to shoot at someone 10' away? Just ignore those things and go with the flow. We will all be much happier.

Back to the story; Fox, driving a Viper with her feet while sliding across the hood and shooting at Cross rescues Wesley. She takes him back to meet the Fraternity and begin his induction.













For those who love car chases this one alone is worth the price of admission. Ironman Al, I am looking in your direction. You will love this movie.

There are other car chases and a heavy dose of outstanding cars. It is a beautiful thing and very easy on the eyes.

Wesley proves to be a slow learner but slowly and surely he learns everything a guy needs to know to get ahead; how to take a punch, how to take a knife stabbing or slicing, how to curve a bullet and how to plan a hit.

He wants to hit Cross for killing his father but Sloan (Morgan Freeman) won't let him because he is not ready. So Cross comes looking for him.

Slowly Wesley learns the truth of how the Fraternity works and eventually (5 minutes in this will NOT be a surprise to you so hopefully I am not giving anything away here) he invades their facility in one of the best shootout scenes in recent memory...almost.














The action in the scene is brilliant...it is a well-choreographed set-piece full of blood and thunder with more rounds expended than in any 5 A-Team episodes ever filmed. There is a brilliant sequence of exchanges as he empties gun after gun and instead of reloading simply snaps up one falling from the hand of an enemy. I have but 2 quibbles and both speak to personal taste, not quality of film; 1) I would have loved it even more full speed as I am not a huge fan of slo-motion. 2) I am extremely sick of the jiggly, shaky camerawork. I can do that myself. Give me steady cameras. I want my movie to look slick. I want to know I am watching a slick, big budget Hollywood flick.

Be that as it may it leads to a well done ending where loyalties and mores are tested, the twists are more or less resolved, and the Fraternity is put to the test, as is Wesley.

As to the ending, and after you see the movie this will make a lot more sense, there is a huge difference between the characters played by Jolie and Freeman. It also speaks, in my opinion, to why Freeman is the better actor.

When he is asked to play the villain in a movie...he is a legit villain. There is no easy out such as I would argue Fox takes in this one...there is no question at the end that Fox is a "good guy" and Sloan is a bad guy. Is that simply script? Maybe. But I cannot call to mind a single movie where Jolie does not, at some point, prove to be a hero on some level.



By contrast, Freeman is not afraid to be the villain. In fact, we are almost coming to expect it to the point where we expect that twist. We may not know when it is coming or how but we know it is coming. And his commitment to villainy is enjoyable because he does it so well.



That is not to say he should only take the roles of villains. He is such a talented actor that the more Freeman we see the better off we are. He can play a variety of roles and commands the screen when he is on it.


By limiting herself to only heroic roles Jolie stifles her path. She is still a talented actress and lots of people enjoy, ah, feasting their eyes on her. Myself? I'll take Jessica Alba.

Hellboy

When it comes to Super Hero movies I don't need much in the way of a plot. Throw in the barest thread to keep me interested...Lex Luthor trying to create new real estate, the Green Goblin seeking revenge, the Joker robbing a bank...let's face it, the storylines are pedestrian at best but we don't care because the action is HUGE and, more importantly...fun. It is a release from the every day.

When we talk about Hellboy (2004), those elements come into play. The basic plot is simple: Nazis trying to touch the occult summon a demon who is raised by the good guys and turns good himself. He fights various "things that go bump in the night" because he is equipped to handle them. Eventually, however, the people guiding the Nazis will return to bring forth the Apocalypse at which time Hellboy (Ron Perlman) will have to choose; is he a man or a demon?

Along the way we get some pretty cool fight scenes such as the slaying of 6 guards by Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beren), some sort of undead surgically created/maintained creature with no verbal skills but lots of combat abilities. He has a bizarre fascination with long bladed knives. It would seem "Hitler's top assassin" would have more lethal weapons...but then again, that would not have been nearly as cool, would it?

But of course there is the subplot surrounding the relationship of Hellboy with Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). It is obvious the two of them
It is obvious the two of them share a past together. Her firestarting abilities would be troubling for most people but for Hellboy...well, a running gag is "fire doesn't hurt me!"

He has a mighty stone fist and a gun that has a seemingly endlessly array of bullets. He seems to enjoy combat and wants to do it alone. This leads to some highly entertaining scenes as he battles the resurrecting and replicating Sammael (Brian Steele) across 2 continents. And that is the most satisfying thing about the movie...the combat scenes are entertaining. They are not much more than mindless hack and slash...but in a Super Hero movie, mindless hack & slash can work very well.

He inquires of Abe Sapien (Doug Jones...who sounds a LOT like David Hyde Pierce whom you remember as Niles Crane on Frasier) on how to slay Sammael. Later Abe is injured and taken out of the equation...but I suspect he will have a larger role in the upcoming sequel.

The plot has a fairly standard ending but the journey to get there is just so much fun that you don't really care. It delivered what I, at least, want from a Super Hero movie; lots of fun, a lot of over the top combat and a satisfying conclusion.

Get Smart

I loved the old '60s show Get Smart. It was funny without being pandering, had slapstick without being over the top stupid, had incompetence that was still somehow believable within the internal world...furthermore, according to Peter Wright, former assistant director of MI6, in his autobiography Spycatcher: The Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer, 1987, it also gave MI6 ideas for some spy gadgets!

So when I heard the opening lines in the trailer, "Since time began there has been a struggle between Kaos and Control" I had plans to see the movie. As I saw more trailers I got less excited as it seemed to have gotten less and less of the series right. Still...it is Get Smart (2008) and missing it would be letting Kaos win. We can't have that.

The opening was classic in that the entrance followed the old series in form and feel. As Maxwell Smart (Steve Carrell) passed through
a series of modernized doors that closed in a variety of ways, he then approached a telephone booth to match the old entrance. As he entered, he passed a museum of Control items...all of which belonged to the Maxwell Smart played by Don Adams. This was a very nice touch and a nod to people who were seeing the movie because of Don Adams as opposed to some of the younger audience who might be drawn to the movie by Steve Carrell...or, truth be told, that certain percentage who might be drawn to the theatre not so much for nostalgia but rather to check out the new Agent 99, Anne Hathaway. As you can tell, she is not hard on the eyes...

"Agent 99" of course was one of the long-running jokes in the classic tv series as somehow, nobody ever realized someone who went by the name Agent 99 might be a spy.

As the movie develops it turns out the modern day Maxwell Smart is a frustrated field agent...despite having excellent field agent scores he is denied the promotion because he is such a good analyst. His competence in that field is all but irreplaceable. Meanwhile, rock star Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson, the artist formerly known as 'the Rock') is out in the field kicking butt along with numerous other agents.

When virtually all Control agents are compromised Smart is finally promoted and given to Agent 99 as her partner, a move that frustrates her. The story moves along with Smart alternately committing incompetent bits of mayhem and brilliant bits of espionage. Along the way there are a hilarious dance off, numerous callbacks to the old show with lines like, "Missed it by....that much" and a great sequence where he tries to convince the Kaos agents they are surrounded by anything from an army regiment on down to his close-out line, "Would you believe Chuck Norris and a BB Gun?", an obvious reference to the ongoing cultural meme about Chuck Norris Facts.

Perhaps the best reference is his use of

the shoe phone. He had already done that earlier in the movie but after being arrested as a double agent, he made his escape. As part of his escape he stole the items from the Don Adams museum, including the old shoe phone. It was a very funny bit.

The story is surprisingly good. Though unquestionably it is primarily a Steve Carrell vehicle (a thankful choice after rumors that Jim Carrey had been tabbed back in '98...he would have wrecked it with horrific overacting and exaggerated facial expressions and vocal tics), it still brings us a nice story with a couple nice twists, though nothing too surprising, and there are numerous great jokes. The Kaos plot is bizarre and involved enough yet with silly enough elements to remind us of what made Get Smart great. The Cone of Silence makes and appearance, there are great action sequences, and at the end of the day we all walked out laughing and smiling.

I went in with low expectations and came out loving it. They nailed it.

The Chronicles of Narnia:Prince Caspian

Growing up I absolutely loved the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The sequels, however, never really appealed to me. I don't think I was ever even able to finish Prince Caspian...and I have read some real garbage. I fought my way through the entire The Circle of Light series under the faint hope it would, at some point, have a payoff. I was wrong, it sucked beginning to end.

Anyhow, when The Chronicles of Narnia:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) was released I was very excited. That excitement faded an hour into the movie as the realization crept over me; I HATED this movie. It lacked the charm and touch of the book.

As a result when Prince Caspian (2008) rolled into theatres...I didn't. I heard a lot of people who loved it and a few who hated it but it never captured my attention. Amazing what happens when you have a free movie ticket in your pocket that doesn't apply to new releases and have sat in traffic for an hour without accomplishing anything. So off to the Lloyd Cinema I went.

Unlike Lion, Caspian starts out pretty quickly with some action sequences. When a baby boy is born to Lord Protector Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), he orders Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) executed. However, Doctor Cornelius (Vincent Grass) comes to the rescue. In the ensuing chase Caspian encounters Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage) and Trufflehunter the badger.

They save him from the pursuing minions though they argue about what to do; wants to kill Caspian but Trufflehunter wants to help him. Nikabrik (Warwick Davis), the soon to be fallen dwarf, wants to kill him but Trufflehunter wants to help him. Meanwhile, the stereotypical dour, cynical dwarf Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage)

is captured by Miraz's men. Using him as a tool, Miraz goes to start a war with Narnians to commit genocide on them and legitimize his own ascension to the throne. The Pevensie children rescue him and we start to get into the real meat of the movie. Each Pevensie child reveals character flaws.

For High King Peter the Magnificent (William Moseley)

the issue was his self-centeredness and unwillingness to listen to others. His headstrong ways will get numerous members of Narnia slain and lead to great strife between he and Prince Caspian until at last he learns others have valuable advice to administer.

For Susan (Anna Popplewell)

it is her sense of not belonging. She is never comfortable with having contact with other people and does not know what she wants. Her lesson is to gain self-confidence.

Edmund (Skandar Keynes)

is deemed to have learned his lessons in the first movie. Finally, it is left to young Lucy (Georgie Henley) to learn the lesson that if she believes, she must not let others stop her from "coming to Aslan".

Along the way they meet denizens of Narnia, some of whom are there to fill body count roles and some of whom need to learn their own lessons such as Reepicheep (Eddie Izzard)

Reepicheep needs to learn that he does not need to counteract his size with an outside sense of honor.

Unlike the Lion, the battle scenes in Caspian are quite impressive and enjoyable. The story is actually pretty solid with a few surprises. The primary problem it has is...well, frankly, the movie is derivative.

Example: In the climactic battle the river comes into play in a way that had me screaming Fellowship of the Rings: a giant figure forms in the foam of the river and wipes out the bad guys. Griffins carry heroes in ways that were a call back to Return of the King. There was more...but that gives you a rough idea.

There was also, in the interest of full disclosure, a very heavy dose of religious commentary for those alert to it. Peter has come to rely on himself instead of Aslan (a very clear Jesus character). Susan doesn't want to see him (Him?) because she was hesitant to come back to Narnia and does not want to give him credence. Lucy wants him to act as she wants instead of how he sees best and does not go to him because nobody else is going to him. Trumpkin does not believe in him so can not see him. To those not well versed in religious lore it quite possibly passed right over their heads...or perhaps not. I would be interested to hear thoughts on that.

Overall, it was well paced, had interesting and engaging story lines, was well-filmed with gorgeous scenery, and I am disappointed I waited so long to see it.