This one is coming in a little later than usual. I knew that out of any movie I had ever reviewed, I would probably have to do the most explaining myself on this one, due to the fan base. I wanted to take my time with it… Reviewing this film, I run into very similar obstacles I did when reviewing Sex and the City last year. No really… I did… With Sex and the City, I had to separate my male brain from my film critic brain. With Watchmen, I have to separate my fanboy brain from my film critic brain. So, with that said, here goes nothing…

OH Before I get to it…

Fired Up! – 2.5 stars – not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road – 3.5 stars – Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler – 4.5 stars – A great bio-flick, even if it’s fake.

Watchmen

5 Stars

What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you’re Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.

Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.

Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.

The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there’s an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It’s not just true for Haley’s Rorschach. It’s true for Patrick Wilson’s nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin’s Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.

Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan (“Grey’s Anatomy”) and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you’d get Blake’s twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you’d get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup’s Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.

This film never could have lived up to any fan’s expectations, unless that fan’s expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it’s exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan’s (aka “fanboys”) expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It’s true for X-Men. It’s true for Star Trek. It’s true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.

The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It’s true for “Frankenstein.” It’s true for “Grapes of Wrath.” It’s true for “Watchmen.” The cinematic version is one man’s interpretation… the director’s, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won’t translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.

Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren’t going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.

The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there’s so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.

There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the “fanboy’s personal interpretation.” I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian’s murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach’s back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book’s explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book’s version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers’ mouths.

The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It’s important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it’s just frustrating.

When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it’s time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it’s contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.

I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that… nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn’t in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.

Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity… I didn’t have a problem with it. I didn’t notice after awhile.

The end.

Quantum of Solace

4 Stars

When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That’s not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.

Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006’s Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia’s water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.

While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06’s Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.

The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That’s not to say the character was flat, just… in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.

But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond’s debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan’s Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That’s what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn’t possibly be real.

The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it’s at? There’s part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.

I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.

And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah… I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He’s everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn’t possibly exist, but Greene, there’s a very real chance of it. And that’s pretty scary.

And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t’aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character’s brief stint on camera.

As it’s own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it’s a damn fine movie. But you can’t rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I’m glad it’s progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.

W.

4.5 Stars

No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 – 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president… but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.

W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn’t been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.

There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn’t get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.

The Dark Knight

5 Stars

There’s been a lot of advance press concerning this new Batman, The Dark Knight flick. And I know a lot of you… well a lot of you probably already saw it. But for the 2 people in the civilized world who have yet to see it, and are sitting on their couch, reminiscing of the good old Jack Nicholson days of the Joker, wondering whether or not the film is worth all the positive press it’s receiving. Wondering whether or not Heath Ledger’s Joker really is Oscar worthy. Wondering if it does in fact live up to the hype. Well wonder no more, Brodie-maniacs. Cause as a person who actually saw the film, and as a well respected, admired, and not very well paid film critic, everything you’ve heard is not only true, but also a vast understatement of the true greatness of the film. I only give it 5 stars because that’s how many my usual rating system would allow. On the IMDb, I gave it 10.

Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman, this time fighting a mysterious and demented criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger). Aiding him in his fight against the scarred madman are his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine), the now Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), Gotham City D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), wise businessman Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce’s former girlfriend, A.D.A. Rachel Dawes (this time played by a real actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal).

One thing the Batman franchise as a whole, from the comics to the movies to the animated shows and movies, has always done is blurred the line between hero and villain. Batman is a hero, but he’s not a clear cut hero (like his DC counterpart, Superman). He fudges the moral and ethical line to take down the bad guy, and makes no effort to show remorse for doing so. So he’s the hero, but he’s no Boy Scout.

On the flipside of that, the villain isn’t necessarily pure evil. The way John and Chris Nolan wrote the character, and to an even greater extent, how Ledger (Lords of Dogtown) played The Joker, presents the villain as doing villainous things, as being a morally devoid entity, as being chaos incarnate, but it’s not entirely clear that his motives are all that wrong. Sure his methods are destructive, murderous and utterly criminal. But is chaos for the sake of chaos all that wrong?

And that’s the magic of Chris Nolan’s directing and writing. He upholds, skewers and satirizes the traditional comic book notion of Hero vs. Villain, all at the same time. To intensify the point even more, there’s Dent’s downward spiral from beam of hope D.A. to corrupt and deranged Two-Face, fascinatingly portrayed by Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking). Eckhart portrays the cool, confidence of a D.A. who champions the fall of organized crime. And for the first two acts, you believe in Harvey Dent as the symbol of all that is good in Gotham. Then, after certain events, he begins his rapid descent into cynicism and madness. And to a character shift like that takes a special kind of moxie. And Eckhart exudes the talant to do so.

But make no mistake, there is one clear hero amongst the villains and near-heroes- Lt. James Gordon. Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) brings gravitas to what has previously been nothing more than an ancillary character. And his desire to do good and keep the people of Gotham safe is the shining beacon of good in a city shrouded in moral ambiguity.

It would seem that the three supporters of Batman are the only three truly “good guys.” Gordon, who we already talked about, but there’s also Caine’s (The Prestige) Alfred Pennyworth as the guiding voice of reason for Bruce. And there’s Freeman’s (Wanted) Lucius Fox, who, in a very poignant scene, objects to Batman’s methods, offers to help, then tenders his resignation due to his objections. Proving that standing by one’s ethic code is more important than the alleged greater good.

Nolan’s direction was perfect. He paces the movie just right. You never look at your watch, in the entire two hours and thirty minutes, wondering when it’s going to be over. In fact, once the credits start rolling, you’re asking yourself “Wait… it’s over? No, there has to be more.” Part of that is due to Nolan’s deep understanding of how to construct his characters in their action sequences.

I’ve saved the elephant in the living room for last. Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker. If you’re a regular follower of my blog, you’ll remember that I’ve been ranting and raving about his performance since the first teaser hit theatres back in December. And I did the appropriate memorial page when he passed in January. So it may seem like people have been fawning over his performance on the merit that he did pass away.

But oh how you would be wrong, if that’s your mentality. Ledger digs way deep down to find the true essence of The Joker. He’s a mystery. He’s an enigma. And he is the personification of pure insanity, pure chaos. He exists to create anarchy. Ledger takes Joker’s lack of real purpose and motivation to exemplify himself as a counterpoint to Christian Bale’s Batman. The performance is not only the best cinematic villain ever (take that Hans Grueber), but it is also one of the most nuanced and perfect performances ever committed to film.

Ledger’s performance is completely Oscar worthy. Ledger lost himself in the role, and it is pure acting, at it’s core. And there are plenty of other aspects to this film that are Oscar worthy. It is not only the perfect super-hero movie, but it’s a perfect crime drama epic, oddly reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Godfather.

I give it 5 stars, because it truley deserves all 5 of them, and then some.

– Brodie Mann

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

4.5 Stars

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is one of those niche films based on a niche comic book directed by a niche director. By all accounts, it shouldn’t do well with mainstream audiences. But it’s just too damn good to not do well. I think because director Guillermo del Toro is just too damn bizarre to resist.

Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) has his hands full in the newest installment. Not only is firey girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) demanding more out of the relationship, but an elvish prince is seeking to take world domination away from the humans. By using an unstoppable army. A golden army. Now Hellboy, Liz and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) must join forces with Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane) and the princes sister to prevent the centuries old truce between the two races from being broken.

Hellboy, the character, let’s talk about him. Ron Pearlman brings a sarcastic, sardonic, anti-hero attitude to the big red beast, playing the character to perfection. He’s a reluctant hero, but he’s not as scornful towards the people he saves as they are to him. He understands that he has a job to do, and does it, despite the rejection from the public. And Pearlman exudes that. It’s not too many people who would be able to play so well through piles of make-up, but Pearlman is the perfect match for the character.

As an actor, he’s able to balance the character’s conflicts. He never emphasizes one over the other, as they are all equally important to the story. His internal conflict with who he is and who he could be, his constant arguments with Liz about where their relationship is heading, and his duty to save humanity from the forces of the golden army.

Guillermo del Toro launches himself to the position of greatest modern fantasy director with this film, as if El Laberinto del Fauno didn’t already cement that title for him. His ability to create a visual spectacle that leaves you amazed, breathless and hungry for more is unmatched, even against heavyweights Peter Jacksons, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. del Toro takes fantasy to the extreme, yet keeps it simple. He doesn’t rely on the CG like the rest tend to.

The only complaint I really do have is that he tried to cram too much into the film. It’s too busy, there’s too much going on. He should have dialed it back, especially in the first act. It’s such an overload of bizarre creatures, that you’re hoping for rest, which you never get.

For a perfect mix of comedy, action and fantasy, it doesn’t get any better than Hellboy.

WALL-E

5 Stars

I need to get a star graphic. Oh well. WALL-E is beyond good. It is beyond great. It is, without a doubt, the greatest Pixar film ever. But more than that, it is one of the finest animated films ever.

WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class) is a simple robot, charged with the simple task of cleaning up earth 600 years after humans abandoned it following the global conglomorate Buy N Large’s almost eco-decimation of the planet. There were other WALL-E units, but WALL-E is the only one who remains active, and he’s developed a quirky personality. He lives alone on the planet, save for a pet cockroach, and the random interesting knick-knacks he finds. To bide his time, he watches an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!, deciding what he’s missing in his life is love. Enter searcher robot EVE, sent by the humans (who live on massive space stations) to find signs of life on Earth. It’s the classic story of boy meets girl. Except boy and girl are robots. WALL-E falls in love with EVE, though she’s more interested in accomplishing her primary directive, which she does when WALL-E gives her a plant he found (get it, like a flower, awwwww), and then she promptly shuts down, waiting for the transport ship to collect her and her findings. Thus starts and interstellar journey to bring the humans out of their sluggish and completely pampered lives aboard the space stations, but more importantly, one of the greatest love stories ever committed to screen. Involving robots.

I really don’t know where to start with this. I haven’t had pre-release anticipation for an animated film since 2004’s The Incredibles (also Pixar). And I haven’t truley been impressed by one since then.

What got me with this one was a bizarrely intriguing story, coupled with fantastic filmmaking. And that, I believe, is the magic of Pixar. Where other animated films try to do a mix of adult content and kid stuff, so there’s “something the whole family can enjoy!”, Pixar films take the adults, particularly the adults without young kids (like myself), back to when we were kids. It recaptures the magic we all felt when we saw Aladdin go on the magic carpet ride with Jasmine, when Belle and Beast danced in the main ballroom, when Robin outfoxed (pun intended) Prince John, when Pinocchio turned into an ass, when Dumbo flew for the first time and when Prince Charming kissed Snow White to bring her out of her deep slumber. It leaves out the slick pop-culture references and the dubious double entendres the older audiences would understand but the youngens won’t.

But mostly, Pixar rewards its audience. And WALL-E is no different. There’s payoff. You don’t walk away wondering why you just sat through the movie. You walk away glad you were able to get to the theatre to see it.

Director Andrew Stanton (A Bug’s Life, Finding Nemo) took a risk in creating what, for all intents and purposes, could be considered a silent film. A silent animated film. The first half hour is nothing but WALL-E, the cockroach, and ultimately EVE. Sure we get snippets of Fred Willard as the CEO of Buy N Large (live action no less) and a few clips of Hello Dolly!, but for the most part, it’s a robot and his bug. There’s a significant Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin feel to the character. To do that sort of thing in a modern “kids” film, takes guts. And Mr. Stanton, you’ve got ’em.

There’s some great political commentary in there, too. About the environment, about mass capitalism, about societal apathy. But all that is obvious to the viewer (except the younger ones, who probably define capitalism as “Washington, D.C.”). The thrust of the film, and what is most engaging about the picture is the love story.

We’re not looking at two human characters, or personified animals. These are two robots. It’s a new kind of love story. And it’s played perfectly between the two characters. Stanton kept it simple. He didn’t try to overcomplicate it, or make it goofy. It was a love story, and he told it. They just happen to be robots.

But really, and this is the technical portion of the review, the film would have been no where without the fantastic artwork of the Pixar animators. There’s a meticulous attention to detail that even in some of the better animated films you don’t get. And nothing is without purpose. There’s a reason everything that appears on screen, appears on screen. Be it foreshadowing, be it plot advancement, or be it just for laughs (like the Pizza Planet truck, or Hamm the Piggy Bank), it all serves a purpose. Nothing is thrown away.

It is my third 5 star review of the year… and it is the first ever animated film to hold the number one slot in my living list of “Best Film of the Year.” And that means in the now 5 years that I’ve been keeping those lists, this is the first time. Seriously… go see it. You have to. I loved this film.

Wanted

4 Stars

Action movies, let’s talk about ’em. They got goofy and campy in the 80’s… then Die Hard came along and redefined the genre. Then every action movie after that tried to be Die Hard. Then in 1999, The Matrix redefined the genre all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Which brings us to 2008. I’m not saying Wanted has redefined or revolutionized the action genre. But it’s definitely changed the rules, and has done something pretty damn good.

Scottish star James McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a 20-something nobody working not-so-comfortably as low-rung management at an accounting firm. Barely content that his life means nothing and will go no where, his world almost literally explodes when he is drafted into The Fraternity by Angelina Jolie’s Fox. The Fraternity, a secret society of assassins headed by Morgan Freeman’s Sloan, wants Wesley to pick up where his father left off before his untimely murder by a defected member of The Fraternity. Why are these assassins so special? Why is Wesley so special? They have heightened senses, which allow them to react to a situation better than a normal person. With his training complete, Wesley must now face an ultimate, life changing conundrum: go after the man who killed his father, or listen to him when he reveals the alterior and sinister motives behind Sloan’s bidding.

While it certainly doesn’t break any new ground with the plot (lonely guy working in a dead end cubicle job is informed that he’s special in many ways and must now use a plethora of guns and some kick ass action sequences to stop the bad guys… aforementioned Matrix say what?) What it does do, is shatter the traditional notions of good guy vs. bad guy in the action genre. Primarily through Wesley. Why is becoming this super-assassin? Is it for the thrill he gets off of his new found talents? Is it to avenge his father’s death? Is it because it is what he is told his destiny is, and he’s blindly following it? There’s a philosophical discussion in the making here, and it’s something that hasn’t really been explored since The Matrix.

Similar traits have been explored in the plethora of super-hero movies that have been released over the past nine years, but those were traits that were engrained in popular characters long before they were put to the silver screen. While I admitedly have not read the comics this film was based on, there’s a bit more legitimacy to it than there is when the guy is donning red and blue spandex. The Wesley character is more tangible because we know who he is, we can see him. He’s not wearing a mask, metaphor intended.

McAvoy (Atonement, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) deserves a lot of that credit. That role could have been played a myriad of ways, but he plays it right. The transformation of frustrated meek to frustrated strong. It doesn’t seem like a stretch for him or the character, and it’s certainly not as offensive to the audience as the three hour long GAP ad that was Spider-Man 3. There’s a natural flow to his progression as a character, and I don’t mind the obligatory sequel set-up at the end.

What I liked most about Freeman (oh come on, if you don’t know who Morgan Freeman is, you have no business reading my blog), is that not only is the character a sharp contrast of his usual character-type, but it’s a particular opposition to the character we’ll be seeing in two weeks with the release of The Dark Knight. He’s stepping out of character, which is good. Not to say he’s the villain, far from it. But there’s more depth, I suppose, to his leader role. There’s doubt. There’s mystery. There’s skepticism. You never quite take your eye off of him. The fact that it’s Morgan Freeman doesn’t lull you into a false sense of security. To the credit of Freeman, he doesn’t let his personality take over the role.

And then there’s Jolie. Damn is she hot. I mean, yeah, good actress, miles of talent on that one. But DAMN! Enough of me being a guy… She’s a good actress, done some really great work. While you could tell she had fun with this role, there always seemed to be a slight hint of boredom on her face. Could have been a character trait for Fox. But I couldn’t tell.

I have to give props to director Timur Bekmambetov (if you know who this guy is, then you get a free pass to my blog for life). I was unsure of how he would make the move to doing a mainstream American film. He gained some notice State-side a few years back for his decidedly Russian Night Watch franchise. But I wasn’t overly impressed. They were alright, but nothing to write home about. That’s always kind of a shakey deal, when someone from a vastly different cinematic community (particularly one as diverse, storied and different like the Eastern European/Western Asian community) tries to break it elsewhere. Very few Bollywood and East Asian directors have been able to do it (face it, Ang Lee’s American stuff sucks, as does John Woo’s). But having seen Night Watch, I can tell that he didn’t compromise his voice to the studio, and that’s something you have to respect in a director helming such a high profile, tent-pole of a film. Thumbs up, Timur. I don’t know what that means in Kazakhstan, if it’s a good thing, or if I just insulted your mother or whatever. But here… means good stuff. Keep your eye on this kid.

So Wanted unfortunately doesn’t break new ground in the genre, but it definitely stirs the pot a bit. And that’s what you’ve gotta do every so often… stir the pot. And it was thouroughly enjoyable.

The Incredible Hulk

3.5 Stars

It’s easy to restart a franchise when enough time has passed to wash the bad taste of a terrible cinematic outing out of the collective mouths of the movie going public. Just ask Christopher Nolan, who successfully restarted the Batman franchise following Joel Schumacher’s failed attempts at the caped crusader. But what about just five years later, when the stench of failure still lingers? Louis Leterrier decided to find out by rebooting The Incredible Hulk, and where the pairing of Ang Lee and Eric Bana failed (which was everywhere), Leterrier and Edward Norton pass with flying colours, even if they only manage to produce a slightly better than average superhero flick.

Leterrier throws caution to the wind and decides to completely ignore the previous film, and instead take it on a new path, that parallels the iconic 70’s TV show. Provided only a brief, yet informative exposition, we join Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) in self-imposed exile in Brazil, working at a bottling plant by day, conducting his bio-chemical research at night. Gen. Ross has (William Hurt) has vowed to bring Banner back to the States for studying, and has gone so far as to bring in Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), the Russian born, English raised soldier known for his tenacity. After two failed attempts at capturing Banner, Ross and Blonsky conspire to infect Blonsky with the same gamma radiation that transformed Banner, only at a lower dose. Just to even the playing field a bit. This back fires when Banner visits his old love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and a maximum carnage battle ensues on a college campus. Blonsky becomes addicted to the radiation, and soon turns into Abomination, sort of a Hulk meets Stegosaurus. Epic battle in Harlem that ends in… I’m not going to tell you the ending. Go see the movie.

Yes, I do in fact recommend this film. The comics and TV show always managed to find the balance between the sublime inner-torment of the character, and the utter ridiculousness of the fact that he’s a scientist turned Not-so-Jolly Green Giant. That’s where Ang Lee’s film failed. He took the subject matter too seriously. But Leterrier found the balance. He injected his film with enough to make the character seem human, one who the audience could connect with. But he kept in the humour, and just a smidgen of camp.

Normally I don’t do this, but I have to give HUGE props to Craig Armstrong, the composer. He incorporated some of the TV show’s original music into his score. I particularly enjoyed his use of the sad walking away music (this piece of music right here).

The thing about Edward Norton (American History X, Fight Club) is that he is such a talented and versatile actor, yet this doesn’t somehow seem beneath him as an actor. This could be that the landscape of superhero movies has changed, with such noted actors as Ian McKellen, Robert Downey, Jr, Kevin Spacey and anyone in the principle cast of Batman Begins not named Katie Holmes, taking on roles in the superhero genre. Norton takes on the difficult role of Banner, and makes it his own.

It ranks up there as one of the better heroic performances in the genre, certainly miles ahead of Eric Bana’s, but he doesn’t wow me in the role, as Bale and Downey, Jr. did in Batman Begins and Iron Man, respectively.

I think the strongest performances belong to the two villains, of all people, Blonsky and Gen. Ross. Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms) never goes over the top with Blonsky/Abomination, almost playing him as a junkie. And Hurt (Into the Wild, A History of Violence), going in the opposite direction, plays an often cartoonish villain with the right amount of serious vigour, and goofy, overdrawn mannerisms. His performance comes off as an odd mesh between Patton and Carter Pueterschmidt (that’s a Family Guy reference, second one of the review).

But while this film is clearly a step up from the previous effort, it lacks the social consciousness, or the stunning introverted look at the character that other superhero films have offered.

This marks the end of the official review. In the next paragraph, I’m going to geek out a bit, and it does contain spoilers as to the end of the movie. If you would not like to read the spoilers, surf over to another page.

*I hope that Marvel studios isn’t just toying with us on the prospects of an all star The Avengers movie. If you remember from the end of Iron Man, Samuel L. Jackson showed up as Nick Fury, recruiting Stark to join a “new team.” Well, at the end of The Incredible Hulk, we get a shot of Banner learning to control the Hulk, cut to Gen. Ross in a bar, in walks Downey, Jr. as Stark, looking to recruit Banner for a “new team.” With Captain America and Thor movies in the works, scheduled to be released ahead of The Avengers, it is safe to speculate they are planning an all star Avengers movie. Not to mention, that the Captain America film is called The First Avenger: Captain America. If Marvel is smart with the marketing, and no one has ever accused them of not being smart in that area… they could open up the summer with Cpt. America, and close it with The Avengers. It’s too bad Marvel’s film licensing is spread out all over the various studios, because then they could at least attempt cameos from other stars/heroes.

END SPOILER