TRON: Legacy

Daring. Vivid. Brutally real. Visionary. Joseph Kosinski's dystopian debut pushes boundaries and defies convention, but once grasping our attention and fastening our eyes to the sleek fiction unfolding on the screen, we realize that this movie is more of a dated facade designed to rake in profits than it is the perspective-changing vision were were lured into watching.

Even the best of movies can be corrupted by even a few bad lines, or perhaps a few good lines that are poorly delivered. Needless to say, this was neither a dialogue-driven, nor a performance-driven film, to say the least. Garrett Hudland was less than perfect (almost unlikable, even) and even a respected actor like Jeff Bridges failed to deliver. "Crazy Heart" Jeff Bridges was infinitely more satisfying than "Tron: Legacy" Jeff Bridges. And while I'm sure Tron is a boost to Olivia Wilde's up-and-coming career, it certainly didn't boost her credibility as an actor. And don't get me started on Michael Sheen. He should just be ashamed of himself.

On the bright side, Daft Punk's music left nothing to be lacking. Bravo.

Not to discredit the whole movie, it did have a few redeeming aspects. The graphics were gorgeous, and the pure imagination of the movie was nearly astounding. It is quite unfortunate that once the "box" was thought outside of, the producers couldn't think of any better message than the stereotypical "bittersweet happy ending." No revelation of truth, no affirmation of the importance of family, no worthwhile message of any greater good. What a shameful waste.

Sadly, there's really nothing more to be said in this movie's defense.

On the whole, this is a "nice" movie. Beautiful, different, but unfortunately shallow. I give it a generous 7/10 on merit of the visual mastery, soundtrack, and imagination behind it.

Salt

Before I start, I should probably say that this entire review will be covered with spoilers from top to bottom. now. to begin.

Here's the plot of Salt, according to IMDb: "Evelyn Salt is a CIA agent and highly respected by all, including her boss, Ted Winter. Out of the blue, a Russian spy walks into their offices and offers a vital piece of information: the President of Russia will be assassinated during his forthcoming visit to New York City to attend the funeral of the recently deceased U.S. Vice President. The name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. Concerned about the safety of her husband, who she cannot contact, she goes on the run. Winter refuses to accept that she is a mole or a double agent but her actions begin to raise doubts. Just who is Evelyn Salt and what is she planning?" does this sound like a decent movie? Yes, it does. It's simple, new, and mildly intriguing. is this even vaguely what this movie is about? Of course not.

Were I to attempt to sum up the plot of Salt, I would say something like this: "A secret Russian agent, working for the CIA as a cover, and pretends to kill the Russian president, because she's actually a triple agent, working for America, because apparently, America's just inherently good. after she succeeds in pretending to kill the president, she murders her Russian leader, although she has every reason to remain loyal to him, helps save America from nuclear war, kills another double agent, and escapes to who knows where after she convinces a government friend that she's a triple agent." did that make sense? No, of course not. Why? Because Salt (the Russian agent, played by Angelina Jolie) had no motivation whatsoever. She was trained since birth to work for Russia, endured no end of hardships for her country, did everything exactly how she was supposed to, and then, seemingly without cause, switched sides. Could it be because she loved her husband? no. Her husband was German, and uninvolved until near the end, when he was killed. could it be that she became attached to her colleagues? doubtfully. she killed several of them, and ran from the rest. Could it be that she was angry at the Russian society for killing her husband? doubtfully. she was a triple agent before they killed her husband. If she had a motivation, it is quite beyond me.

Additionally, the plot was really a two-movie story. Anyone who has seen "The Box" understands what I mean. The concept, expected due to the trailers, set up in the movie, and completed convincingly, was that Salt, a Russian spy, was going to kill the Russian president. That's all very well. There was a huge set up for a twist, but by the end of this particular section of the plot, the result was more or less "yup. that's it." after that, the plot spiraled downward, crashed, and burned. This is hauntingly similar to the plot of The Box. This movie was written by Kurt Wimmer, writer and producer or Law Abiding Citizen, who really should have known better.

But lets move on. I am pleased to say that I have never in my life seen more people killed by being hit with guns. No, not by being "shot" by guns.... being "hit" by guns. A pleasant break from the overplayed "shoot everybody really fast" routine that action movies seem to favor, or the "a secret agent can kill anybody with anything" routine Hollywood has recently fallen in love with.

But while the action was commendable and the plot was detrimental, perhaps the acting can save this movie? Ha. don't be silly. Jolie and Liev Schreiber (best known as Sabertooth from X-Men Origins: Wolverine) did awfully; terribly; horribly; almost unforgivably. Chiwetel Ejiofor (known for his work in Children of Men, American Gangster, and 2012), while not a terrible actor, is seemingly unable to act more than one character. However, almost seemingly in a feeble attempt to redeem the movie, August Diehl (known from a minor role in Inglorious Basterds) and Daniel Olbrychski (this being his first major American film role, but with a more than impressive television resume) did excellently, particularly Olbrychski, who I would enjoy seeing in more roles.

So on the whole, this was a mindless, pointless, wasteful movie. The plot was almost unbearable, the acting was shameful, and while the action was interesting, these things just don't add up to a "good" movie. If all you're out for is 2 hours to sit in front of a screen and mindlessly take in action and stereotypical plots, you'll find what you're out for. So maybe this movie isn't really pointless, just misdirected. It serves it's purpose: cheap action with a mindless story. for that reason, I give it a generous 4/10

Inception

Everybody loves a good "thinking movie." From the reality-bending conclusions of movies such as Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" or  Scorsese's "Shutter Island" to the psychological torture of Nolan's "The Dark Knight" or Kubric's acclaimed classic "A Clockwork Orange," to the familiarly bent reality of Fincher's "Fight Club"--people love to think at the movies. More than to think, people love to understand something new after a movie. While mindless films such as Transformers or Avatar grab sizable portions of the box office, who can ignore the legacy of what is generally agreed to be a "good" movie; a movie that lingers in the viewers mind, that can be reflected on and admired long after leaving the theater. What people love is ingenuity. "Inception" literally means "a beginning" or "the start of a new idea", and a new idea is what it delivers. Without question, Nolan has lived up to his golden reputation once again.

In fact, this is a movie in which I found very few flaws. Nolan directs enchantingly and magnificently, if not in the "high-art" style many similarly acclaimed movies share. DiCaprio delivered one of his better performances, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Peacock) was very nearly flawless in his role. The one real problem I had with the acting was the relationship between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy.) While Nolan obviously tried to create a sort of teasing witty rivalry between the two, it wasn't pushed enough to become secure. The result was a half-hearted chemistry that was neither convincing, or added to the movie.

Now for the story...  It was an enchanting and clever story, but was slightly flawed. The genius of this movie lies in the fact that it pleases the audience by showing them something new and makes them think they understand it, while at the same time, it leaves enough open-ended and unanswered questions to leave them wanting to come back and experience it again. It's flaw lied in the fact that there were so many unanswered questions. For instance, the very first scene in the movie showed Cobb (DiCaprio) washed up on a beach. He's taken to the home of a very old man, where he proceeds to try to steal a secret from a younger man's safe. At the end of the movie, he goes back to the exact same scenario, is taken to the house of the very same old man, but this time, the old man IS the younger man, grown up. so who's the old man the first time? It's the questions like these that brings the audience back to see this film again and again, but no matter how many times they see it, the question will never be answered. But even though I have pointed it out as a "flaw," perhaps it is really a clever device... after all, it DOES accomplish great things for the movie.

Visually, this movie was striking, but not quite all it could have been. The slow-motion bits were nice, but could have undoubtedly been better. Without giving too much away, by the climax of the film, there were 4 or 5 levels of reality, each one of which were relatively 20 times slower than the level before it. so a minute in one level could be as long as over 100 years in another level. this leads to some wonderful level-jumping slow-motion shots, but were never pushed as far as they could have been, never going more than 2 levels in either direction. Additionally, the visual spectacle of the film wasn't exercised enough. While it was a wonderful story with occasional striking imagery, it was never as visually spectacular as it could have been.

As I've mentioned above, the story was really the strong point of the film. However, the dialogue left much to be wanted. Nolan certainly wouldn't have hurt anything to have brought someone else in to polish the screenplay, maybe insert some clever lines, and add a bit of charisma to the characters. It's the dialogue that makes movies like Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" tick, and Inception could have greatly benefited from it.

But after all, this is all nitpicking. On the whole, this was a highly-entertaining, intellectually provocative, visually mesmerizing (if not striking), film. While it may not be life-shattering or world-changing, it is easily one of the best films of the year, very nearly living up to it's "perfect movie" reputation. I would give it a 9.5/10, and plan on seeing it again when it is released on DVD

Knight and Day

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a wonder beyond your wildest dreams; a spectacle the likes of which your eyes have never before witnessed; a marvel of the modern world; an unparalleled treasure to which you will never find an equal. I present to you: a Hollywood action movie with little-acclaimed, and slightly outdated actors, an un-notable director, with a slightly familiar story with a not-too-radical twist. Yes, we live in a day when run-off-the-mill action movies are not only a dime a dozen, but also disproportionally sensationalized, all for the sake of making as much money as possible out of apathetic, easy-to-please audiences with low standards, and apparently too much money in their pocket. Fortunately, Knight and Day exceeded my expectations, which were, unfortunately, very low.

It's a difficult thing to not clump "action" movies--or any genre for that matter--together, but Knight and Day was a movie that, in fact, although outwardly fitting the above description of an average, mind-numbing action movie, surprises the viewer into enjoying it. Although this wasn't a movie that makes one think, it certainly forces one to pay attention. If the viewer goes to see this movie and merely sits down to take it in, a majority of it's beauties and foreshadowings will be missed, and consequentially not enjoyed. The more the viewer actively observes, the more he takes away, and the more he enjoys. I'm afraid this movie entirely passes up the typical audience, hence it's unpopular reception at the box-office.

So what about this movie makes it tick? We all know Tom Cruise has outstayed his welcome in Hollywood, Cameron Diaz is too much the Hollywood veteran to be a carrying star, and James Marigold has enjoyed little to no acknowledgment as a director, plus anyone can see that the typical "killing machine" intrigue has worn off through movies such as the Bourne trilogy, and a romantic action twist just doesn't cut it any more. However, all of these components fit together masterfully to create a movie that not only stands out, but shines when given the attention it deserves. Although alone, no particular part of this movie stands out, each piece works together for the greater good of the movie.

If I had to pick one thing about the modern movie that not so much bothers, but annoys me the most, I would say it was bad running jokes. By "running jokes" I mean a joke, a line, or a sequence that's brought up early in the movie, that's repeated late in the movie for romantic, comedic, or dramatic effect. When used incorrectly, these can ruin a perfectly good evening. It was truly a relief to be pleasantly surprised by a good running joke. Kudos' to Patrick O'Neil, this being his first job screenwriting for a movie.

Does anybody else think that Jordi Molla, the actor who played Antonio, looks strikingly like Russel Crowe, star of Marigold's last film, 3:10 to Yuma? coincidence? hm....

Also, it would be nice to see Maggie Grace of "Lost" and "Taken" in more serious roles.

On the whole, I give Knight and Day an 8/10, being a film that I not only enjoyed, but would like to see again. although I am no fan of either Cruise or Diaz, this was a nice escape from the realities of real life, as well as of Hollywood's infamous factory-line sludge.

How To Train Your Dragon:

Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King--I think you would agree: these are good films for any writer to have under his belt. Meet Chris Sanders, former Disney bigwig turned Dreamworks director, who is, I believe, the first in a prospectively bright line of Dreamworks directors. Why so hopeful? Writer/director Sanders, along with fellow Mulan and Lilo and Stich co-director Dean DeBlois, have managed to breath life into a lifeless genre: the Paramont Sludge. and what, exactly, do I mean by "Paramont Sludge"? Monsters vs. Aliens... Madagascar 2... Bee Movie... Over The Hedge... need I go on? while none of these were terrible movies, I think that movie-goers and critics can agree that these are far from meeting Pixar's high-caliber entertainment standards. Up, WALL-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo--Pixar is known for it's family-oriented entertainment with heart; far-fetched stories with spirit.

So why have Sanders and DeBlois restored my faith in non-Pixar animation? Without trying to compete with Paramont's classical "big name" voicing, they chose a very nearly perfect cast: upcoming comedy icons, action stars turned fledgling mainstream actors, late-night television hosts, and, most importantly, Jay Baruchel, the little-known actor voicing the movies main character, Hiccup. although many may grudge him for his lead in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, he delivered excellently under 3D animation's rock-bottom standards.

Now to cut to the core: Hollywood doesn't know how to end a good movie. Happy-go-lucky, "all's well that end's well" endings just don't cut it, and Sander's realizes this. Unlike most live-action movies, and virtually every animated film, this was a movie that, when it's all said and done, made me feel connected to the characters in a way most movies cannot. To have the protagonist(s) abused, disregarded, redeemed, loved, idealized, de-throned, expiated, victorious, defeated, resurrected, and ultimately immortalized and cherished, was entirely ideal. For once, I not only felt the character's presence, but his heart. If anything, that is what mainstream Hollywood just hasn't learned to grasp.

On a side note, Gerard Butler rocks.

Was it the best movie ever? no. the best animated movie? not quite, but even if this film isn't 3D animation's saving grace, it is, at least, proof that it's headed in the right direction. Hats off to you, Sanders.

The A-Team: There Is No Plan B

Finally! A fresh new director in Hollywood: Joe Carnahan. Other than the little-acclaimed Smokin' Aces, this is truly a director with no sizable track record directing a movie that has what it takes to compete in the box office. In fact, compared to the average action-flick, I enjoyed A-Team quite a bit. Why? It was funny, action packed, well characterized, and all-in-all, entertaining. Sure, it might not have had the story value of Dark Knight, or the graphics of Transformers, but this was a genuine action movie. huzzah for Carnahan.

I have very few complaints about this movie, actually. The story was poor and the dialogue was strained at times, but it had some interesting twists and funny lines... enough of them to make me forgive Carnahan completely.

One of my complaints? Liam Neeson. in 2008's wonderful french film Taken, he was looking just a little to old to play the action-type, but he was supposed to be a late-middle-aged father, so I overlooked it. by 2010, he looks very much too old. Sorry, Neeson, everybody has his day. yours ended years ago.

I was, however, very happy with Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. While it's getting more and more common for professional wrestlers to try to enter the film industry, it's getting more and more rare to find one that's actually a decent actor. While Jackson might not be any Morgan Freeman, he's certainly promising, and I hope to see him in future rolls. perhaps an A-Team sequel? You can count on it.

Action movies have a bad rep as being empty and pointless. while this is usually true, sometimes there's a movie that's just good and outrageous enough to be forgiven. A-Team is one of those movies. Maybe it's a little too over-the-top, but fortunately for us, "overkill is underrated."

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

Jerry Bruckheimer. A successful, if modest, movie producer. Armageddon, Remember The Titans, Perl Harbor... BAM. Pirates of the Caribbean. Jerry Bruckheimer proved that Disney still has what it takes to make a good, successful movie. Based of a theme park attraction, none the less. And then... a TV producer? The fear of every industry professional: a career down the television drain. Sure, he had a few movies (notably Deja Vu and G-Force) since his big break, but what happened to our much loved Hollywood hero? BAM. Prince of Persia. but wait, this isn't the Bruckheimer we loved. Sure, it had action, sure it had characters, but where was the spirit? Unfortunately, Disney doesn't still have what it takes.

I'll start off by saying that the action and acrobatics of this movie were very good. And I don't mean, "there was explosions and blood," I mean the action was entertaining, thrilling, and put to good use. Actually, this movie was surprisingly blood-free.

That said, this movie was rather stereotypical and stale. not good for an action movie. The characters were completely stock, seldom lovable, and never clever or witty. strike two. While I understand how it would be difficult to create a movie off of a very old video game, the story was terrible. And I don't just mean that it was a stupid concept, I just mean that it was poorly executed and at times actually boring. And while the ending was great, I'm afraid that's strike three.

Lets go back to the characters: bluntly, this movie had some of the worst, most un-original characters I have ever seen. Typical of Disney, I know, but still, I would have expected more. Pirates of the Caribbean--while some will say was overly complicated, or to stupid--had excellent characters and an interesting story line. As I said, Disney's fallen a long way.

Some of the characters were interesting, don't get me wrong. For example, the snake trainer had a little bit of the "creepy, deformed, and dangerous" edge that many PotC characters had. Unfortunately, characters had little to nothing to do with how the movie played out. Characters were based on stereotypes: the haughty princess, the rash young prince, the greedy moneymaker, the knife thrower--we've seen these all before. As if that wasn't bad enough, the characters in the movie were completely static. sure, the princess overcame her initial detestation of the prince, but her character remained the same. and then, at the end.... back to where we started.

The story was a little lacking as well. I mean, sure, they had to adapt it from a video game, but it was still not a very good story. The ending, however, was very nice. The one thing that doesn't make sense... supposedly when the dagger is used while stabbed into the sand, it incurs the wrath of the gods. that's all very nice, but when the gods start destroying the earth, he just goes back in time to before the earth began to be destroyed. Did nobody think of that? Just a little, well... stupid. agreed?

But in the spirit of summer blockbuster action flicks, this wasn't a terrible movie. It had action, romance........ well that's about all it had, actually. but what more could you ask for? this is summer, the time for cheesy, irresponsible, knock-off action movies. As serious movie goers around the world shake their heads, the more "in it for the show" moviegoers will enjoy this movie and most likely find it entertaining. Is it the next Pirates of the Caribbean? not at all. The next GI Joe? almost. ladies and gentlemen, welcome the next Eragon.