MOVIE REVIEW - Copout

I shan’t be spending too much time on this review. Not because of how terrible it is, but because I love Kevin Smith. I love his movies. I love his scripts. And I adore Bruce Willis. But Copout isn’t simply a weak movie; it’s a waste of a movie. Period.

If you’ve seen any buddy-cop flick you know what you’re in for here. The fact that this sub-genre is still alive after Edgar Wright demolished it in Hott Fuzz is astounding. What’s worse is that Kevin Smith couldn’t even come up with any new gags to make it stand out. It is about as dumb as you can imagine it is.

Bruce Willis is an actor always worth paying to watch. He’s just an entertaining individual and if there’s anything nice to say about Copout, it is the simple fact that Willis graces it with his presence. If I were to pick the worst aspect out of the film, it would be Willis’s opposite, Tracy Morgan. Watching Morgan attempt lines is about as enjoyable as having a diseased chimpanzee shit in your mouth.

And no tragedy of cinema would be complete without an appearance from Sean William Scott. Although Smith was nice enough to grant me the pleasure of watching him dragged behind a car. It’s these small moments the film sparks, but once the flash is gone we get the deep void that is Copout.

The best example is the interrogation at the film’s start. Morgan’s attempt to scare a man by using classic movie lines gives Willis plenty of commentary to satisfy Kevin Smith nerdom. It was a reflexive moment that could have carried the entire film, but this is not your typical Kevin Smith outing. It’s a studio attempt at another movie with two dysfunctional cops getting in trouble. It doesn’t have to sound as lackluster as it is, but since the concept has been explored so many times I suppose the writers figured, “Why bother?”

So what does Copout have? Well Morgan is having marital problems, so we get to see the fascinating subplot of a cop spying on his wife. Oh, don’t worry! I won’t spoil whether or not she really is cheating on him! There’s a damsel in distress somewhere in there. Gee, and what buddy-cop movie would be complete without the main characters’ suspended from active duty? It raises the stakes, man! They have to soldier on despite having their shields revoked! Think of the suspense.

Apparently Smith took a huge pay cut to make this movie and did it as a career move for future projects. I can certainly understand that. To move up in the world you have to make some unflattering plays. It doesn’t excuse the ugliness. A platypus is still a platypus and a bad movie is still a bad movie. I could dance around everything that’s wrong with the film all day, but that’s too depressing. The movie is called Copout, do you need any more of a warning?

* out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Tron Legacy

“The Grid.” Says the brilliant Jeff Bridges, “A digital frontier.” It’s almost like the beginning of a Star Trek episode. It forewarns something mysterious and unknown coming our way. In a way this monologue is still an advertisement for the movie. After two years of waiting and a rumored $120 million spent on advertising alone, Tron Legacy’s hype ended under the dim lights of the multiplex. Is it bad I’m starting this review with the film’s absurd hype?

For those who haven’t seen the original Tron, you need not bother. One of the sequels great strengths is that you need virtually no understanding of the first. Right out of the blocks we’re introduced to younger versions of the main characters, Kevin Flynn (Bridges) and his son Sam. After Flynn’s unexplained disappearance it takes twenty years for Sam to find his father in “The Grid.”

I find it odd that there’s no mention of Sam’s mother, but maybe that’s asking too much. Should we care? Director Joseph Kosinski doesn’t bother too much with those petty details. Oh, but why should he? He has a world built on lights, glass and sexy motorcycles to worry about. If anything, Tron Legacy is a magnificent technical achievement. The costumes, sets and special effects are so beautifully realized it’s like watching a ballet of lights. Dare I risk heresy and say it was more enchanting than Avatar.

But above the aesthetics are flaws that have plagued far too many blockbusters in the last decade. The film’s pace screeches to a painful halt when Kevin Flynn explains a novel’s worth of back story. This voice-over exposition is so long-winded that I can’t help but wonder if it might have made a more interesting movie.

Even Clu, Flynn’s alter ego, gets a flashback worth cutting from the film. Although the scene’s attempt to humanize the antagonist failed, I must admit, watching the young Jeff Bridges is mesmerizing. I can’t say Bridges' face, digitally enhanced to look young, is a slam-dunk; but despite the flaws I’m more impressed with how close it looked. It wasn’t as impressive as Schwarzenegger’s face in Terminator Salvation, but to keep up the look for a whole movie must have been taxing. I'm interested to see how far this technology goes in the future.

In a sense the effects behind Clu’s face represents Tron Legacy well. After all, much of the movie’s pseudo-philosophic banter is about the merging of technology with man. That’s certainly what’s happening when a very human Sam gets integrated to a “memory-disc.” And you could also say the young, CGI Bridges represents the quality of the film itself: Close, but not quite.

The ultimate problem with Tron Legacy is its inability to build any real excitement. Sure, the universe looks enticing, but, like the original, the ideas are more promising than the presentation. There’s no awe to this “digital frontier” and by the time the movie climaxes you wonder if you missed a segment of build up. Still, it’s those ideas that kept me watching. While I’m probably rating this film to leniently, I can’t shake how cool Tron Legacy seems. It’d be nice to see how cool it could be one day.

**½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Harry Potter and the Deathly-Hallows Part I

Praising the Harry Potter film franchise has become something of a given. Even at its lowest there’s charm to it and at it’s highest they’re some of the best films in the genre. Rebounding from that low point, the sixth movie, David Yates presents us with the most heart pounding chapter in the franchise.

I was one of those who cursed Warner Brothers for the decision to cut the seventh book in half. Obviously they wanted to milk more out of the cow, right? I still stand by that sentiment, but if you’re going to split a storyline in half, you might as well make it count. The Deathly-Hallows may be half a story, but it is most definitely a complete film. This is the Empire Strikes Back of The Harry Potter movies. The chips are down, the heroes are battered and the baddies have the upper hand.

Accompanying the journey with our heroes is the dreaded feeling of abandonment. Harry, Ron and Hermione have no one to turn to, nowhere to hide and running only does so much. The series has finally rammed home just how evil Voldemort is. Following a tense opening sequence that ends with a wonderfully terrified Jason Issacs and a dead Hogwarts teacher, (a.k.a. snake food) Voldemort’s power over the wizarding world becomes air tight. The Ministry has converted to a fascist regime. It’s not just Harry that’s in danger, the end of humans, or “muggles,” is nigh. This is how the Potter universe should feel. We should be weary of every corner the characters turn.

Meanwhile, under the very best performances of Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson to date, the heroic trio come to blows over the seemingly futile quest to end Voldemort and… Hermione? Of course Harry has it bad for Ginny, and the film makes no secret about it—Bypassing the cutesy, shoe-tying crap from movie six for Harry zipping up her dress and kissing her like he means it. But with Hermione going all out for her friend, Ron is succumbed to jealousy. Does he mend his relationship with the two later? How triumphant would it be if he redeemed the situation by saving the day. Right?

And yet, it’s the scenes between Harry and Hermione that grab me the most. (Again.) Completely platonic, Harry has nothing to give the young woman in return for all she’s sacrificed. So with the radio pumped up he picks her up and dances with her just to get a smile on her face. These kids may have grown in to action heroes, but they’re still very human.

While the characters, acting and gorgeous cinematography are at a series high, I can’t believe some major events happen off screen. Character deaths and massive shifts in the wizarding world are revealed through word of mouth. While this may have been fine for the book, it leaves me a little baffled. We see Harry's flashes of Voldemort interrogating people; why not see how he took down the Ministry of Magic?

Though it isn’t the epic battle between those in charge and Voldemort that make The Deathly-Hallows. It’s the emotional journey of three characters who have grown up to fight a war they’ve been dragged in to. In some ways this story is reminiscent of what many in today’s world feel like. With a cliffhanger ending that does anything but ease that feeling, the Harry Potter series is set up for one hell of a triumphant finale. I pray the quality of this film carries over.

***½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - The Last Airbender

I’m not entirely certain what is more confusing, this movie or M. Night Shyamalan’s career. The man threw down three of the most entertaining thrillers of my time and now he’s the Brett Favre of cinema. If there’s a trailer for his film, it will read “From the director of The Sixth Sense and Signs.” Nothing he’s done in the last seven years is worth a mention and his resume is now filled with as many blunders as Jimmy Fallon.

And yet my sympathy for the man still runs based on those three early triumphs. It may be that’s why I can’t condemn The Last Airbender as the worst movie of the year. Or maybe I really do believe it’s more worthwhile than say, Copout. Regardless, there’s no refuting The Last Airbender’s gaping void of decent filmmaking.

The Last Airbender has the story of those classic epics. A dark empire is running over the land and a young, reluctant hero must go on a quest to gain the powers necessary for peace. The difference between this film, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is that the latter two treated their characters like Christ and His Apostles. Instead, the special effects get that respect in The Last Airbender.

Noah Ringer, the lead character Aang, isn’t terrible considering he’s had no prior acting experience. Yet I’m astounded, with all the talent in the world, Shyamalan decided being a black belt in taekwondo is more important than delivering lines. Was there a stunt man strike I wasn’t aware of this year?

Despite having more experience the rest of the cast isn’t any better. It makes you wonder what director Chris Columbus and the casting director of Harry Potter could’ve done. After Last Airbender, I dare anyone who criticized the early performances of Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint to tell me it couldn’t have been worse.

And as if having a poor script for poor actors isn’t bad enough, I’ve come to question Shyamalan’s shot choices as well. It was becoming evident in The Happening that his eye for great cinematography was waning. But The Last Airbender has shots that would only make a SyFy channel movie director proud. The director is supposed to make his actors look good. It’s an unwritten rule based on trust and collaboration. M. Night didn’t get the memo. He drenches the adults in even more ridiculous garb than the children and reveals the hokiness of the sets with very wide and puzzling cinematography. The 360 degree stuff worked in The Matrix. It even worked in Godzilla: Final Wars. It doesn’t even begin to work here.

And yet, with all the poor choices made with this movie I seem to have a soft spot for it. Perhaps the word-of-mouth that this was the worst movie of 2010 prepared me for something much worse. The Last Airbender is far from a good film, but it can be fun. Like I said, the story is a classic epic—Pure myth that we can all enjoy and look up too. Maybe that’s not a reason to have sympathy for a film and its director, but I’ll take it over The Happening.

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

If cinematic originality is suffering, like so many internet trolling experts say, then my reply would be that it’s not always how original the story is, but how you tell it. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is an example of that reply biting me in the ass. The age-old story of a warrior battling for his true love is retold as a video game/comic book hybrid. I was originally interested in this idea and the prospect of another comedy by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). I was even willing to set aside my hatred for Michael Cera and Beck Hanson to enjoy this film. But try as I might I just couldn’t embrace Scott Pilgrim.

When Scott Pilgrim cheats on his current girlfriend for the mysterious Ramona, karma catches up with him in the form of her seven evil exes. From there he goes through each ex, fighting for Ramona while trying to maintain a relationship with his band and roommate.

As if it were hard to choose, the best part about Scott Pilgrim is the nerd driven battles. Piled with video game nods ranging from Guitar Hero to Street Fighter, these fight scenes aren’t only creative acid trips, but hard hitting action sequences too. When Pilgrim smashed his fist in to the first “evil ex” I was really impressed with the way the visuals made me feel the impact. It makes me wonder if the wire-fu from the Matrix Trilogy is going to stand the test of time. Oh, yeah, and they’re pretty damn funny too. The fight with a vegan Brandon Routh peeks when Thomas Jane and Cliff Collins Jr. make a cameo as the “Vegan Academy” security. Brillant.

But beyond the ball breaking action scenes lies Michael Cera who was terribly miscast as Scott Pilgrim, a character far too confident to carry Cera’s trademark inelegance. (Or as I like to call, dumbassery.) Not that the writing is particularly excellent anyway. It tries to be quick and witty, but it’s handicapped by painful moments of awkward humor that made me shrivel up in my chair and wish I was watching any other movie. Why is it that Cera is a magnet for these types of moments? Is it in his contract to implement the clumsiest, eyeball puncturing moments in every movie he pollutes?

Oh, but Cera isn’t the only one to blame. There are plenty of poor actors in this movie and if it weren’t for the quick editing none of the lines would be saved. But should they be saved? It’s never a good thing when I’m halfway through a film and want to take an axe to the run time. What purpose did Pilgrim’s first meeting with the lesbian ex serve? It actually ruins the fact Ramona dated a girl. (Spoiler) Then there’s the long exposition between her and Scott. Why? This is a movie with a guy fighting a league of evil exes not My Fair Lady. Oh, right! I nearly forgot. What would we do without those important shots of Cera embarrassing himself? How would the world turn?

If you feel the need to see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I’ll grant you can do a lot worse this summer. But it’s not much of an improvement either. It’s an overly long venture in high-octane special effects mixed with misfired humor and the occasional L.O.L. I can understand the need to do something different; to do something fun and to try something new. I can even appreciate the effort. But when the result is as alienating as this film what did it accomplish? Mr. Wright, you’re too good for this. P.S. Dear Beck, stop. Just stop it.

** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Toy Story 3

Ah, Pixar. Once again I write a review about a film that was loved before it was released. Such is the case with most Pixar films. I suppose I was one of the few not totally enthralled with Ratatouille. And I don’t think the internet has enough bandwidth to relay my scathing hatred for Cars. So what of the final episode in the Toy Story trilogy? Should I praise it because it’s another Pixar home run? Should I hail it because it’s the best ending to a trilogy I’ve ever seen? Or should I just give it a thumbs up for being a solid movie? I contemplate this with such cynicism only because of my misplaced belligerence toward Pixar’s perfectionism. I don’t think Toy Story 3 is Pixar’s best film, or even the best Toy Story; but if there’s a textbook example of it’s astonishing (see: sickening) mastery over cinema—Well, here it is.

Toy Story’s finale sends Buzz and Woody on a quest to find a new home as Andy gears up for college. Though parting ways is hard on many different levels. The toys find a replacement daycare “paradise” that turns out to be hell on Earth. Meanwhile, Woody partakes in his favorite pastime (getting lost) and plans to rescue the others.

I read one film theory that claimed this movie was actually a retelling of the Holocaust. Whether that’s true is up for debate, but it’s certainly an interesting look at the story and gives it a little more dramatic weight. But if you wish to pay attention to the film’s political construct or not, rest assured Toy Story 3 has a heavy focus on the emotional aspect of its break-neck adventure. Almost immediately the film’s heartstring-plucker gets to work when we see a grown Andy and his dwindled collection of toys eager to be played with. While the Andy's coming-of-age subplot is certainly an important aspect of the story, most of the film is about moving on-- Times of change where one must let go and embrace the future. So which is more gut wrenching? Coming-of-age? Or moving forward? I suppose it doesn’t really matter since you’ll have to contend with both ideas at the movie's tear-jerking conclusion.

Not that it's perfect. I felt like the villain was too close to the previous film’s antagonist, what with his nice-guy/troubled past persona that turns out to be a façade. Then there’s the fact that the toys are fretting over Andy getting rid of them. Toy Story 2 established that they knew this day would come and they act as if they’ve forgotten about that. Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in again. Maybe the point I’m missing is that accepting fate doesn’t make the process any easier. Still, while the situational focus on the toys’ relationship with Andy is intriguing, I miss the franchise-defining camaraderie between Woody and Buzz. (Whom I felt was nearly wasted.)

Yet if the Toy Story series has shown me anything, it’s that they know how to end a movie in the most poignant way possible. After Pixar’s most armrest clenching showdown of their twenty-five year existence comes another high in emotional endings. I use the word “high” only realizing that if Toy Story 3 were a drug everyone would be on it and under Pixar’s control. Maybe we already are considering the immediate love for this film. Frankly, I can’t say it doesn’t deserve it. After all, how many beloved series end this well? Any takers?

***½ out of ****

When Bands Change - The Rebirth of Linkin Park, The Stinginess of Fans

I've been a fan of Linkin Park for a long time and for most of that time I've defended them from real music lovers around-- Whether they're indie snobs that get hard from listening to some silly nightmare of insomniac curing shit like The White Stipes or Beck, or real "hard" music loving fans that still claim the likes of Metallica are the greatest musicians in the world despite the fact they went to war with their fans and refusing to release a lick of decent material in twenty-five years. Or they just like thrash metal and they're long gone...

Very few times, however, have I had to defend them from their own fans. This isn't even designated at a grand majority, but rather a bunch of ear-candy loving pussies who refuse to grow past the age of nine. Who gave them computer access? Can retarded people use a computer this well?

To clarify what's happening, Linkin Park's new single for their September 14th-bound A Thousand Suns was released yesterday. Titled "The Catalyst" I was initially unsure of the song myself based on very few clips. But once I heard all 5 minutes and 43 seconds of this monster I was astounded. Linkin Park had finally moved away from the typical mainstream sound and structure they had proved to easily reproduce with Minutes to Midnight (2007). Meanwhile the sounds of Hybrid Theory (2000) and Meteora (2003) were nowhere in sight.

Ah, but those naive fans thinking that Linkin Park would return to their nu-metal, rap-rocking roots were of course left more disappointed than ever. Trolling and spamming the Linkin Park website like clockwork with their inability to spell and clear irreverence for punctuation. Here's some of my favorites gathered from linkinpark.com and their facebook. Guaranteed to make you laugh:

"what happened 2 old LP paper cut all the good stuff in the end everything u guys messed up =( OLD LP FTWWWW since u guys switched music theres hardly anymore good rock"

"WTF?? Linkin park have you sold out to the Techno "FAN BOYS" or what?
I love you old stuff and that's why i was a fan of yours but if you don't pump out some good sounds where going to leave you."

"Sadly i will say that 1-2 songs on MTM was OK..... but still not the LP we love and know. And what's with all this GOD crap?? are you guys some christian rock/techno band now?"

"Omg so far from the meteora's album.. You're no more that a pop gay band :(.."

"not as good,as l.p used to be,please change your style again and come back to you earlier music ok.."

"Im not even lieing these guys song suck ass now..greenday much better"

"wats wrong wid all u dickheads who liked the song????? i mean are u guys fuckin kiddin me!! oh ok!! lemme guess everyone who liked it must defintaley be backstreet boys fans!! now i get it!! its assholes like urll who encourage LP do do this shit!! wanna listen somethin new go and listen to that bitch lady gaga u fuckin dorks!! bloddy nerds and geeks!!! dumbassess!! its not about HT and meteora, LP are a numetal alternative hard roc band, they already belonged to a category which cudnt be defined then y this!! its coz of ppl like urll who like this sorta crap!! LP this is for "u guys are loosin phase" better do somethin about it and look at the response u get!! and chester please stick to the human nature defined by u.. if its workin well stick to it and stay wid it!! just as a reminder to all HT WAS THE BEST SELLIN ALBUM OF 2001 AND METEORA IS THE ONLY MODERN ROCK ALBUM THAT HAS 5 OR MORE SINLGES WHO HIT THE NUMBER 1 SPOT IN THE CHARTS!!! so the message is straight, stick to the basics wen it works out well for u!!! and anyone who replies to this comment is eitehr frustrated or is so shamelessly a backstreet boys fan and is so desparately dependent on pop and techo music!!"

"its amazing that 95% of people that like this shitty song here are girls... But may i ask if its because the song is actually decent or you like mikes voice casue "he is cuuute"? Crap song, not LP, this is pop."

"Tell us something Mike... All "A Thousand Suns" sounds like "The Catalyst ???? Because, the Catalyst is your WORST SONG !!!!"

"The Catalyst SUCKS !!!! What the fuck is wrong with you Linkin Park?, my remix of "The Catalyst" is BETTER !!!"

"we want the old linkin park back!!!!!!"

"The Catalyst perfect FAIL!!!! Give us the old and hardcore LP!!!!!!!"

"I AM DISAPPOINTED :( wtf/ :(" (With a Meteora icon.)

"well i can wait for the next new album,and i pray to GOD,and i hope that album it's similar to HT or METEORA or LP is just fucking dead..to me they are dead until that cd will came out ...4 years for nothing"

All right, maybe I gave you too much of an example of what asininity looks like. The stupidity is so bad I have to keep it from leaking off my computer screen and attacking me like a virus. But there's just so many stupid people out there-- It was hard to choose. My favorite is the last one. The one I ended this example of idiocy and juvenile behavior on. Even with the band telling the world they want to change their sound over and over, even when we're two albums away from the nu-metal sound and even though nu-metal died six years ago and has remained dead with only a few terrible bands, like Korn and Limp Bizkit, holding on to its decomposing sound, there are fans still crossing their fingers Linkin Park will return to that old mess. I'll at least give them points for holding on to such hope for so long.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of Hybrid Theory and Meteora as well, but that era is dated, dead and, quite frankly, has nothing new to offer. I remember when Meteora was scolded like Minutes to Midnight when it first came out. Can all these fans who only like Linkin Park's old sound believe that Meteora was hated with a passion on the linkinpark.com boards when it first arrived? Guess what the number one complaint was? Ding, ding! It sounded too similar to Hybrid Theory. (Doesn't help that, looking, back on it, Meteora is Linkin Park's weakest album lyrically. How easy is it to rhyme heal with feel and real? I hope it didn't take them all night to come up with that.)

Now I'm aware the majority I'm fighting here are a bunch of snot-nosed, fat, spoiled, ITouch toting middle schoolers who "feel so numb" because Amy Missperfect, sitting two rows down in english class, doesn't like them back. Boo-Hoo. But I've seen for myself that the fan base has intelligence. LPAssociation.com is home to the older, wiser and more mature conversationalists. Most of them like the new stuff Linkin Park dishes out and the few people that don't are at least constructive about it. LPLive.net is similar, even if some of the more immature fans tend to bleed in to that haven. I'm not talking about, or too them, but I will give them a nice, big thank you for being grown-ups. (And using a passable percentage of decent grammar.)

But to the younger, stubborn and immature: The "old" Linkin Park is not coming back. Quite frankly, I'm happy about that. They've grown up and decided to do new things and that's what being a musician is all about. Linkin Park values music enough to push themselves and try new things. They don't want to stay in the old because it was "successful" or because "fans loved it." If they do that then they are selling out. Then they're in it for the money, not because they love music. They end up looking as bad as Limp Bizket. But a musician's art is music and to tell an artist to only paint one thing for his whole career is cruel and damning.

And so be it. Yesterday I heard Linkin Park take a risk, step out of the mainstream and leap even further away from the nu-metal comfort zone to create something with true layering and musicianship. Mike quipped in a UStream that the song is hardly pop just because it uses synthesizer. He's right. There's a lot of great electronic music and industrial sounds out there. (Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails) They're not "pop," so to speak, and neither is this. This is a well constructed, odd, but rewarding experience in an electronic rock sub-genre and quite frankly there's not a whole lot out there that sounds like it. (That's a good thing kiddies. Try to see the light.) Not to mention the astounding lyrics. They're few, but they're some of the best the band has put out. Beats the lyrical angst off of Meteora's "Somewhere I Belong". So to some degree I'm happy you youngster brats don't like the new Linkin Park. It's nice to enjoy a song from this band that jr. high students, or those with the same maturity level, can't understand the beauty of.

Even still, it's sad there are fans that want to break the band down in to a mediocre thought-process and keep them in a box to replicate a single sound over and over. I can't think of a more selfish, greedy reason to dislike new material. If you're constructive about it fine, but I've seen very little evidence to such a contrary.

Well done Linkin Park. Keep pushing forward. There are enough bands that drive backwards. They normally end up wrecking.

MOVIE REVIEW - Predators

If there’s any proof that there are smart people at Fox, it is Predators. Granted, the film was made by Robert Rodriguez’s Troublemaker Studios, but it took a bright man to hire talent from the outside. What’s more impressive is just how damn awesome the film is. Being the ultimate 1980s sci-fi/action throwback, the Predators are back with a vengeance.

The movie wastes no time throwing you into action. Adrian Brody’s Royce awakes in mid-air, flailing helplessly for a ripcord that may or may not be there. Once he’s “safe,” Royce finds himself fraternizing with ex-cons, various military personnel and mercenaries to figure out where they are. But once it’s clear that they’re being hunted, Royce makes the daring decision to fight back.

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen the Predator in a decent flick. Predator 2 wasn’t terrible, but oddly cheesy for a character with such bloodlust. The Aliens vs. Predator flicks are guilty pleasures of mine, yes, but only because they make for fun midnight, b-movies. Otherwise they’re nefarious abortions of great concepts. Predators is the purest sequel to the 1987 classic. The characters are well-written and wonderful examples of testosterone induced heroes you actually care about. Sure, they’re not well developed, but neither were the cast of the original film. We never find out why Royce is such a badass, but he displays said badassary with such believability as he leads the characters through the jungle.

This convincing strut of awesomeness is a real treat from Adrian Brody. (A man who once reminded me of a pencil with Cpl. Max Klinger’s nose.) The man is beefed beyond belief and he pulls off the battlefield hardened anti-hero like he was born for it. Another surprise was Alice Braga’s sniper-rifle toting Isabelle. It’s hard to believe that a female part would work in a movie like this, but her aura echoes the seriousness of action heroines like Sarah Connor and Ripley. And Laurence Fishburne? Comparable to William Hurt in A History of Violence. He’s a true, albeit short, presence.

Meanwhile, the film’s title characters find a complete return to mystery and suspense. Predator 2 and AVP blew up the mythology in a way only George Lucas would love-- Revealing an overly technological Predator home world and a back-story out of a Stargate episode. Here their secrets are reeled back, making for more engaging and mysterious creatures. The jungle is truly where the Predators belong.

We do get some new glimpses in to this savage take on the alien hunters. A blood feud between two different types of Predators is established not only as insight, but a helpful plot device. The “crucified” Predator introduces the creatures to the audience in a brave way. Though previous entries have repeatedly tried to surprise us with the creature-under-the-mask trick, director Nimrod Antal makes the decision to humanize the “lesser” Predator only to reveal much nastier creatures. It works because it’s unexpected. Unlike most sequels these days, Predators refuses to rely on the cliché of repeating classic lines of dialogue, or copying scenes from prequels. If you spot an homage, it’ll be subtle.

This isn’t to say the movie isn’t without faults. The biggest eyebrow raiser begins with the alien world that looks a lot like a jungle on Earth. When one character mentions a specific plant species I couldn’t help but wonder if every alien world looked just like Earth. A new concept perhaps, but pretty dull.

Outside of the minor gripes Predators delivers. It’s not a great movie, but it’s well crafted. No it doesn’t feature “deep” or “moving” characters. But it gives us likable ones to root for. The movie is a classic action romp, dependent on muscles and sweat instead of CGI and explosions. It uses its characters for the heavy lifting and keeps them believable while doing so. That’s far more than I can say for seemingly immortal casts that fly tanks.

*** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - The A-Team

For those of you who know there’s something wrong with the action genre, but can’t pinpoint exactly what it is, I present you The A-Team. Honestly I’m not sure what drove me to this movie. Having heard such terrible things about Robin Hood and Prince of Persia I bypassed the first few tent-pole flicks of the summer for this one. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have fun to one extent or another, but I’d also be lying if I said I wasn’t cringing during a good portion of it.

After being framed in Iraq, Col. Hannible Smith (Liam Neeson) and his “A-Team” of misfit soldiers escape from prison to clear their name and hunt down the operations group that framed the four of them. Sounds a lot like the television show right? Well… assuming you know anything about the television show.

The storyline of the film, or television series, isn’t the problem. It’s the current state of the action genre that turns this film in to an absurd spiral of mayhem. Does anyone remember how to make an action movie? I’d like to point to Die Hard, a movie that started out with a character that was largely relatable. When John McClain is faced with the impossible task of saving a building of hostages from terrorists the audience goes on a journey with him. We discover his weaknesses, his strengths and what makes him the bold character he is while plummeting through several incursions. The audience has hope that he’ll succeeded of course, but because he is so human and has made notable errors, the audience is in suspense of whether or not he’ll be able to save the day. The explosions and gunfire are a fun, but not the stars of the show. This isn’t the case with The A-Team.

Hannible and his team are introduced to the audience as perfect combatants. Right out of the blocks Hannible is able to escape imprisonment with ease and his team show an equal amount of skill and confidence. Unlike McClain, they are completely disconnected from the audience due to their inhuman abilities to beat down a garage full of eight muscle men, maneuver helicopters like an F-22 and fly a tank. (lol wut?) The tank scene is what made and killed the movie for me. While escaping enemy aircraft, the team jettisons from their exploding plane by tank and maneuver it safely over a lake using the main cannon as propulsion. While I appreciate the absurdity, why should I be worried about these characters anymore if they survive a tank falling from the clouds? Oh, sure, director Joe Carnhan tries to trick the audience into believing these characters will bite the dust due to a healthy gunshot wound to the shoulder. But after the tank thing we know better. These guys will survive anything!

And why do action films these days feel the need to create scenes like the tank sequence? Have we reached a point in cinema where the clichés of jumping out of an exploding building are so bad we have to resort to the ridiculous to appease audiences? Is the classic action movie dead, casting aside great characters in extraordinary situations for extraordinary characters in impossible situations? It can be fun sometimes, I’ll admit, but it’s junk food—And it’s all we get these days. Maybe when I can safely fly a tank in to a lake I’ll appreciate this stuff better.

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Babies

You know, in a year that’s looking like one of the worst summer movie seasons in recent memory it might seem easy for a documentary about babies to outshine an A-Team. But the beauty about Babies (and humor) lies in its humanity. The most innocent kind of humanity too! Babies isn’t necessarily about a bunch of infants growing up differently, but rather an example of their similarities immediately after birth.

The vague story of this documentary follows four infants: Ponijao from Namibia, Bayar from Mongolia, Mari from Japan, and Hattie from the United States. From there they learn to crawl, mumble, walk and speak, all while being utterly entranced by fresh, new life.

For a lot of the film, Babies turns out to be more of a crowd pleaser than an insightful journey. The humor surrounding these kids as they decide to gnaw on everything, piss where they please and stare obsessively is truly outrageous. But what gets me is how similar they all are. It begs the question: Is this a movie about babies growing up in different cultures or a film showing how irrelevant cultural preference is in the wake of new life.

To exemplify the similarities of these infants, they all have access to animals and treat them with as little reverence as possible. Panijao tugs on the upper lip of a dog, while Bayar steps on a lamb. They’re curious about these animals’ physical structure and they feel they must learn about them by touching-- Despite how uncomfortable the animals get. There is no boundary for these babies in any culture. They study by doing and they have yet to get to a place where they can be fully assimilated in to their respective societies. To me, this is what makes the film so fascinating.

The film rams home that the purist form of human innocence is the untainted and curious baby. If this sounds hysterical, don’t worry, it’s suppose to be. Mari’s parents may be worried about their job, but she’s more concerned about getting a long, cylinder block through a hole. (Something I’m sure her father would prefer her to learn later in life.) But the failure to understand why these toys won’t stay together upsets her so much that she throws her feet to the floor in a fit of rage. Her day is clearly ruined. The result is both hilarious and engaging. Hilarious because from our point of view the situation means nothing; engaging because this is really what is important to her. It’s how she learns and she feels she’s failed.

But I won’t recommend this to the masses. This is a movie with babies being babies for an hour and twenty minutes with no narration. Nothing Youtube can’t give us, right? But while the film admittedly seems less interested in providing a new perspective and more interested in making the crowd go, “Awww…” I’m pretty sure there’s enough insightful material to spark intelligent discussions. And if you don’t feel the same way, at least we can agree that babies will be babies—And honestly, how damn funny is that?

*** out of ****