By Grant Hooper

GENRE: ACTION/THRILLER
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: SONY PICTURES
THEATRICAL RELEASE: JULY 23, 2010
DVD RELEASE: DECEMBER 2010

Summer is a time that is epitomized by mindless popcorn entertainment and Salt is the perfect example of this. Just like Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Angelina is running, jumping, shooting, and stabbing—all with a cool, calm, and collected smirk. Jolie can be captivating in multi-faceted roles, but seems most at home when jumping off buildings, welding automatic weapons, pouting her lips, and staring danger straight in the face with a sly smirk and a polished pair of shades.

The fact that Salt originally intended to have Tom Cruise in the lead and was then re-shaped for Jolie when he dropped out, should tell you something about her. She holds the screen with as much authority as her male counterparts and resembles a female James Bond or Ethan Hunt of sorts. She becomes the identity of the films she stars in and Salt is no different. Spiders, handcuffs, cleaning solution, cop cars—you name it, she turns it into a lethal weapon.  Add some signature, slow-motion walk-away-from-the-explosion moments and a few one-liners and we’ve got ourselves a formula for mindless fun!

You’re probably familiar with the trailer, in which Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is interrogating Russian defector Orlav (Daniel Olbrychski) for the United States CIA, where she is regarded as a super agent patriot. When he reveals that there will be an attempt on the life of the President of Russia while he is in the United States, it’s is initially dismissed. The rest of the conversation goes something like this:

“The name of the agent who will kill him is Evelyn Salt.”

“My name is Evelyn Salt.”

“Then you are a Russian spy.”

That concept seemed exciting enough to draw me in, initially. Who knows? With a film as clever as Inception being released a week earlier, it could be a summer of broken rules. I wouldn’t go quite as far to say that it’s all downhill after the trailer, but the film certainly wasn’t as intelligible as that one isolated scene of witty dialogue portrayed it to be. After Orlav’s witty dialogue is detected to be true by sophisticated CIA truth-detecting technology, Salt briskly scoots out the back door and is on the run, seemingly with the purpose of finding her husband, who has gone missing amidst the unfolding conspiracy. The rest is a matter of separating the good guys from the bad guys and answering the question: Who is Evelyn Salt—framed government agent or Russian spy?

It is a film that seems to take pride in its astounding ridiculousness. The double-crosses, triple-crosses, and far-fetched twists are its personality and the source of entertainment for the audience, who excitedly gasped and clapped throughout the film. Director Phillip Noyce doesn’t waste much time with back stories, explanations, or character development and that would explain the stunted ninety minute running time. Really, in perspective, I’m not entirely sure about the who, what, where or when—I just know that Angelina Jolie is running from the people who are chasing her, and in this case, it’s entirely sufficient.

Salt never tries to be something it’s not. It’s short, it’s ludicrous, and as long as you’re willing to throw physics out the window right off the bat, it’s entertaining. Now that you’ve been forewarned, if your resolve to see this film hasn’t diminished, you’ll be likely to enjoy it. I was squirming and scoffing in my seat until about halfway through when I finally gave up on logic and gave in to its guilty-pleasure aspect. Akin to a roller coaster ride in the dark, you never know what’s coming next, but that’s the thrill of it.

By C. E. Moore & Brian Hall

GENRE: THRILLER/DRAMA
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: WARNER BROS.
THEATRICAL RELEASE: JULY 16, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

C. E. Moore’s Review:

Christopher Nolan is a master storyteller. After reviving the Batman franchise, he delved into the world of mystery with the perfectly executed The Prestige. He wowed us again with the grandeur of The Dark Knight, garnering a posthumous Best Supporting Oscar for Heath Ledger. Somewhere in there, he managed to make viewers forget that he can tell a mind-bending, time-warping, psychologically-deep tale that never lets up until the last frame has rolled by. Even then, the questions remain. Remember, this is the same man who gave us the trippy film that is Memento. Inception is a return to form for the director and is quite possibly Nolan’s best work to date. He’s the anti-M. Night Shymalan. His films are like fine wine. They only get better over time…and childish minds will not appreciate them.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a man who specializes in stealing secrets hidden within a person’s subconscious while they dream. But, as with any great flawed character, Cobb has a secret threatening to ruin his soul. But, when his is offered the chance for redemption and absolution, Cobb is skeptical. He is eventually convinced and embarks on one last mission. But, things quickly spiral out of control and Cobb must race against time to save his friends, those he loves, and his own sanity.

Per usual, DiCaprio is phenomenal. I don’t think I’ve seen him in a bad film since The Beach. Every time I experience a DiCaprio performance, I am absolutely riveted. His acting is so rich with nuance and passion. Here, he infuses his character with the appropriate confusion, paranoia, guilt, regret, and severity that was required. Ellen Page’s star continues to rise, too. I was a bit skeptical when I heard she had been cast in a Nolan film, especially besides an actor of DiCaprio’s caliber. But, she provides a wonderful foil. Where DiCaprio’s character is losing his grip on reality, Page’s character is in touch with things “as they are.” She is his anchor. Marion Cottilard provides DiCaprio’s emotional complication in the form of his deceased wife, Mal. I will not speak much of her part in the plot, but this former Best Actress Oscar winner* does great things with the little screen time she is given. When she and DiCaprio interact, especially at the tail end of the film, the viewer cannot help but feel the weight of the years these characters have shared together. Ken Wantanabe, Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, and Jospeh Gordon-Levitt round out the cast with great effect.

The only downside to the film is that the soundtrack is sometimes relentless and overpowering. There were several times throughout the film where I could not hear what certain characters were saying and it seemed to be important dialogue. When it was not overpowering dialogue, it would be droning on and “creating suspense” when unnecessary. Maybe this was intentional. Given that things can be muddled in dreams, Nolan could have chosen the soundtrack as yet another bit character in this morality play. We may never know.

Ultimately, Inception is a film about the meaning of ideas, what is reality and what is fiction and where does one draw that line, the power of love over time, and how far a person will go to be with the ones they love. Even as the film ends, we’re not quite sure what is what. Was the ending happy or not? Is hope found in the worlds we create for ourselves or is it found in the harsh reality of the world we find ourselves in? Like every great storyteller, Nolan gives no easy answers for the viewer. He provides us with questions to ponder embedded within a visually stunning canvas…like an idea that grows like a virus.

Inception is not just Christopher Nolan’s finest hour, it is the best film I have ever experienced.

Brian Hall’s Review:

Inception; where do I begin?! After leaving the theater, one of my first thoughts was, “Crap! Now I have to review this!” It wasn’t the fact that it was 3AM when I was driving home from the theater that had me panicking, nor was it the fact that the movie was lacking in things to write a competent review on; rather the film left me so thoroughly entertained and provoked to thought that I thought I wouldn’t be able to formulate a review quickly enough!

Alas, I have and here it is: When I first saw the trailer for Inception a few months ago, I was left wondering what it was all about. Sure, the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio was in it and Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Memento, The Prestige) was directing was more than enough to have me reserve a $20 for movie night! However, I was curious as to the story. But I assure you, the less you know is perhaps better. This allows you to trust everything the film maker gives you.

From the opening scene a sense of delirium and uncertainty is present. This feeling persists through the entire film. When the lines between reality and dreams is so blurred to both the characters and the audience (at one point there are three levels of dreams being had in the same head, at the same time, with the same people!) it is easy to get lost, but Nolan handles the material in such an expert and well thought out way, that you end up understanding and following every meticulously crafted element. In fact, I failed to find even the slightest inconsistency or plot hole.

Without a doubt, Inception is Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, surpassing even his own Dark Knight and Memento! DiCaprio, Ellen Paige (Juno, Whip It), Marion Cotillard (La vie en rose, Nine) in a villainous turn, Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Red Eye), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (500 Days Of Summer, The Lookout), Ken Watanabe (Letters From Iwo Jima, The Last Samurai) and the rest of the ensemble cast deliver stellar performances and each one deserves some lovin’ come Oscar season.

This piece of art is easily the best film I have seen all year and perhaps the best film I have seen in my 22 years! While some films are entertaining and some leave you thinking and some doing both, none have done so quite as well as Inception has. Without a doubt, this film will go down as one of the best of our generation and perhaps even one of the best of all time, ranking with Casablanca, Citizen Cane, To Kill A Mockingbird, Gone With The Wind etc… Weighty remarks, but they hold water. See Inception for yourself and weigh in below!

By C. E. Moore

GENRE: DRAMA/ROMANCE
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT
THEATRICAL RELEASE: JUNE 30, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

I was wrong. Flat out wrong. I went into The Twilight Saga: Eclipse thinking that it absolutely was going to suck. Given the last two movies, Twilight and New Moon, who could honestly blame me? Those movies were barely tolerable and we all know it. Don’t even try to defend them. Be that as it may, I don’t know what happened between the last film and this one, but Eclipse is [possibly] one of the best films I’ve seen all year. All the things that were conspicuously missing from the previous film adaptations–i.e. acting, special effects, emotional depth, balance for the reader and the non-reader, etc.–were present and accounted for. I even clapped as the movie drew to a close.

Eclipse, the third film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s four-book series, centers around the ongoing saga of the human/vampire romance of Bella Swann and Edward Cullen. The second film introduced a slightly awkward love triangle with the addition of hunky werewolf Jacob. But, if it was just awkward in the second film, it was painful in the third. The characters were so emotive that you could not help but feel as torn between these two men as Bella does. I now understand the whole “Team Edward” and “Team Jacob” thing. Neither guy is bad. Both men love Bella and come with their own promise of security. Add to this tragic love triangle a plot by Victoria to murder Bella through the use of an army of newborn, super strong vampires and you apparently have a recipe for success.

Kristen Stewart’s turn as Bella to this point has had, as I’ve stated previously, “the emotional range of a cardboard box.” However, this time around, Stewart is captivating and nuanced in her portrayal. She made me believe this love story was happening. She made me believe that she loved both Edward and Jacob. Her soliloquy at the end of the film expressing her love and desire for Edward is sweeping and breathtaking. Furthermore, her acting complements Robert Pattison’s brooding take on Edward Cullen. Whereas the first two films just made him seem sullen and emo, this time around Pattison’s acting is affecting and one need not question his love for Bella. But, I think Taylor Lautner’s Jacob is the most heart wrenching. While people felt for his character, no one wanted to be his character—to have their heart ripped out as you watch the woman you love fall for another. I got a knot in the pit of my stomach.

The supporting cast continues to be exactly that—support. They don’t play a large roll and could have been fleshed out a bit more, but with the two-hour run time, I wonder if paring them down a bit from the source material was a directorial executive decision.

Another plus to the story is the use of flashback. Until now, we have only seen a flashback of Edward’s turning in Twilight. Even then, the flashback is more of a brief glimpse. However, this time around, we are treated to lengthier flashbacks of Jasper and Rosalie. Jasper tells of being turned and being used to commit all manner of atrocity. Rosalie shares her bitter tale of being turned and never being able to experience the life she’d always wanted. Their stories made me want to snatch up the book and actually read it.

The most compelling part of the film to me was the collision of past and present moralities. At one point in the film, Bella desires to have sex with Edward. No one watching the film seemed to bat an eye at such a notion. After all, they’re were in love. It’s only natural that sex should follow. Bella’s father awkwardly trying to give her advice, assuming she was already sexually active, further solidifies this viewpoint. Bella blurts “Dad, I’m a virgin,” making it funny and uncomfortable. But, it is Edward who steps back and lets her know that he doesn’t want to make love to Bella without being married. This received a ton of “awwwws” from the girls in attendance. One can only hope that Edward’s “old school” point-of-view is one that young men and women will consider more strongly in today’s “sex equals love” society.

My main complaint with the film is that the final showdown between “Team Cullen/Werewolf” and “Team Victoria/Newbies” is as Brian Hall called it “borderline anticlimactic.” The entire film is spent building towards this slow motion altercation between the two factions and it ends rather quickly. Don’t get me wrong. The special effects and gratuitous amounts of slow mo made it really cool to watch. But, a lot of time was spent leading the viewer to believe that this was the most menacing assault any of them would ever face. Then its over in the amount of time it would take Indiana Jones to shoot a man who brings a knife to a gunfight. I just think they could have done more there.

While I freely admit that having lowered expectations might be informing my opinion about the overwhelming quality of this film, I still believe that The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is a great movie that is worth your time. If you’re already invested in the series, you’re going to see it anyhow. But if, like me, you swore that you were done after the last film and are thinking of going against your better judgment, you will be richly rewarded. I would actually go see this one more than once.

For those of you wondering which team I’m on, though…some things are best left unsaid.

By Brian Hall

GENRE: ANIMATED/COMEDY
RATING: G
PRODUCTION COMPANY: DISNEY/PIXAR
THEATRICAL RELEASE DATE: JUNE 18, 2010
DVD RELEASE: NOVEMBER 2010

15 years ago, the world was first introduced to a handful of toys in Toy Story. Cowboy Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Slinky Dog, Mr. & Mrs. Potato Head, Rex and Ham instantly became pop culture icons and staples in American (and international) toy boxes. A few years later Barbie, a cowgirl named Jesse and Bullseye, her trusty steed were welcomed into the arms of a young Andy. Now, 11 years since Toy Story 2 retired from theaters, Andy is 17 and packing up for college. Faced with the decision of putting his beloved playmates in the attic, throwing them away, taking them to college, or donating them, he reluctantly decides to put all but Woody in the attic. Woody will attend college with Andy. After a series of mishaps, all of the toys, including Woody, end up at Sunnyside Daycare Center. Upon arrival the crew is led to believe that this is a retirement home for toys! Echoing the naiveté of most children, the toys are quickly deceived and are tortured at the hands (and mouths and noses and feet and…) of a slew of unapologetic toddlers.

Through a variety of perilous situations (some shockingly intense for a G-Rated film) and some goofy ones, the toys make new friends, and enemies.  One such enemy is Lots-o, the strawberry scented bear. At first, Lots-o seems harmless enough, but his New Orleans accent and charming demeanor cover up a hardened and ruthless heart that is like stone through the entire film.

The most shocking element of the film was its emotional depth and maturity (so much so that it was reminiscent of last year’s Best Picture Oscar nominee Up). Animation has evolved to such a point that during a sequence when all of our protagonists are faced with impending death, the defiance of accepting such a fate, then the acceptance of it is clearly conveyed on their faces and in their animated eyes. Even the mixture of joy and heartbreak that comes with one giving up their favorite childhood toys is clearly conveyed visually and the voice acting is impeccable.

I myself was 7 when the first film was released to theaters.  As this movie progressed, it brought back fond childhood memories and sparked an imagination that had been in hibernation for far too long. With each passing minute, you gradually realize that this is the end of the road for Toy Story and, much like Andy in the final minutes of the film, you allow yourself to ride the roller-coaster of emotions that come when you part with memories by the box-load. By the end of the story (presuming you are about 20+) you feel as though you may have relived your own childhood.

Under normal circumstances I would hesitate to praise Toy Story 3 so highly, however given the incredible quality of the movie, I would put my vote in for this film as one of, if not the best film of the year (so far) by a mile. Pixar delivers another instant classic that is sure to have everyone from 2-102 laughing, crying and applauding through this fantastic work.

By C. E. Moore

GENRE: ANIMATED
RATING: PG
STUDIO: DREAMWORKS ANIMATION
THEATRICAL RELEASE: MARCH 26, 2010
DVD RELEASE: JULY 2010

How To Train Your Dragon is the best movie I’ve seen all year. Period. It is so much fun. When it was done, I didn’t want it to be over. I wanted more. I had laughed so hard and smiled so much that by the time the final credits were scrolling up the screen, my whole face hurt. I hadn’t laughed that hard or enjoyed a film like that in some time—live action or animated. I even wanted my own dragon. Talk about childlike wonder! Toy Story 3 is going to have to be stratospherically awesome to beat this one when it comes time to nominate the best animated feature of 2010 come Oscar season next year.

Hiccup (voiced by She’s Out of My League’s Jay Baruchel) is a young Viking who isn’t much of a Viking. While the rest of his village is big, brawny, and hopelessly hairy, Hiccup is almost the exact opposite. He’s tiny, scrawny, and looks like he would be proud to have even a little bit of peach fuzz on his face. He lives on the island of Berk. And, Berk has a small problem. Dragons are constantly attack his people and their livestock. While Hiccup longs to join the battle against the dragons, his father Stoik the Vast (voiced by 300’s Gerard Butler) won’t allow his son to join in. He’s just too small. Somehow, despite all odds, Hiccup manages to take down the most feared of all dragons, a Night Fury. Locating the downed creature, Hiccup soon realizes that not is as it seems when it comes to dragons. In true animated movie fashion, it turns out they’re really just misunderstood. Heart-warming hilarity ensues.

What makes this movie so great is that it strikes a strong balance between being enjoyable enough for children and mature enough for adults to enjoy. With more and more animated films coming out and 3-D being used as a gimmick to get kids screaming how much they want to go to the movies regardless of mom and dad’s cash flow, films that engage both audiences are becoming less frequent. You either get one or the other. How To Train Your Dragon manages to straddle the line between both. I actually saw it without children in tow and could be happier with the lessons learned, the humor utilized (not adult innuendo masked a children’s absurdity), the visual acumen, and the satisfied feeling you leave with as a viewer.

I’m not big on endorsing animated films. With the exception of the gods at Pixar, animated films very infrequently preach a message that isn’t just some watered down moral tale. But, I highly recommend How To Train Your Dragon. There’s no watering down here. It may not be as nuanced a character lesson as that of Up, but you’ll exit the theatre a better person for having seen it.

By C. E. Moore

GENRE: ACTION ADVENTURE
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: DISNEY
THEATRICAL RELEASE: MAY 28, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

First things first, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is the most Eurocentric thrill ride to come along in a long time. Not since Lawrence of Arabia have I seen more Caucasian people playing Middle Eastern people with British accents. Jake Gyllenhaal as the Prince of Persia? Really? The dude is Swedish and Russian. That’s as far as possible from Persian as a person can get. I don’t think Swedes and Russians can even tan, let alone pass for Arabic. “Throw a wig and some dirt on him and he’ll fit right it!” Ah, Tinseltown and your total ignorance. You mean to tell me there’s not a single olive-skinned actor in all of Hollywood? California even? You’ve got a gazillion waiters and waitresses out there just dying for their chance at stardom. Heck, even an Asian would have been better suited for the role. There’s not a single person of Middle Eastern descent in the film. How does that even happen? Anyhow…that’s my gripe. Other than the Eurocentrism that borders on offense, Prince of Persia is a heck of a lot of fun.

As the story goes, Gyllenhaal plays street urchin Dastan who is adopted from the streets by King Sharaman of Persia and elevated to the position of prince. Think of it as Aladdin meets Moses, only without the singing or the slavery. After attacking the Holy City of Alamut, Dastan happens upon a mystical dagger that can turn back the hands of time itself. It’s a cool excuse for gratuitous slow motion and special effects. It is here that Dastan meets the princess of the Alamut, Tamina, played by Gemma Arterton (You know, the outspoken damsel in Clash of the Titans…same role, different movie). Soon, Dastan is accused of murder and he is forced to go on the run. The rest of the movie features Dastan and Tamina getting themselves into trouble and finding plot-hole laden ways of extricating themselves from danger. This all leads to lots more slow motion, special effects, sword play, riding through a creepy forest with armor-clad stallions (ala Lord of the Rings’ Wraiths), hand to hand combat, knife-throwing, and ridiculous stunt work. And it’s a ton of fun.

Glaring deficiencies aside, I actually enjoyed the film. It’s roughly two hours of parkour-inspired stunts, a story that’s easy to follow, and it has enough nods to the source material to keep gamers happy. It had a bit more CGI than I would have liked, but we’re heading in the direction of an actorless world. That, and the fact that the expansive locales needed to pull off something that looked anything remotely like the video game series upon which this movie is based don’t exist anywhere but Middle-earth. Good luck getting’ there. Tell Peter Jackson and Tobey Maguire I said ‘Hello.’ Prince of Persia is worth your time and money. It’s one of those movies that could have gone really right or really wrong. As a summer popcorn flick, it gets a lot of things right. You can unwind with this one and walk out smiling. Set your cynicism and suspend your disbelief for a little bit and you’ll have loads of fun. Come on…we watched a movie about a guy who dons a suit of iron and flies through the sky and a movie about transforming vehicles from outer space. Surely, we can buy a British-accented, Nordic-looking Persian jumping off of things, dodging 1000’s of arrows and knives, and a magic dagger that turns back time, right? Right?

By C. E. Moore

GENRE: ACTION/COMEDY
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: LIONSGATE
THEATRICAL RELEASE: JUNE 4, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

What do you get if you cross True Lies with Mr. and Mrs. Smith? I’m not entirely sure, but I imagine its something akin to what you’ll get in the Ashton Kutcher/Katherine Heigel film, Killers.

Here’s the plot. Kutcher plays a guy named Spencer Aimes. He happens to be the C.I.A.’s top field operative. And by “field operative,” I mean assassin. He spends his days and nights sending enemies of the state to meet their maker. But, then he meet’s Katherine Heigel’s character Jen Kornfeldt and decides he doesn’t want to kill people anymore. He wants to settle down and “get to know his neighbors.”

Fast forward three years and we find the idyllic couple living in an equally-idyllic home in the middle of suburbia. Spencer now makes an honest living as an architect while Jen works for an advertising firm. Except for one thing. Spencer has a bounty on his head to the tune of 20 million dollars. Needless to say, Jen finds out about her husband’s past when she comes home to find him fighting with a guy they thought was their neighbor, but is actually a hired-gun. From here, things take a turn for the gloriously ridiculous as we find out that a number of their neighbors were “sleepers,” waiting for the perfect time take Spencer out, with prejudice. Lots of action. Lots of bullets. Lots of crazy scenarios. The films ends with a mild “twist” that keeps the movie firmly entrenched in the world of “action comedy.” The addition of Tom Selleck (complete with Magnum P.I. moustache) and Catherine O’Hara as Jen’s overbearing father and “booze-before-noon” mother is uproarious.

Overall, I’d say I enjoyed myself. I wasn’t expecting a lot. Heck, I didn’t even get a lot, but I still ended up being mildly amused with the experience. Kutcher and Heigel work well together on screen and I hope to see them together again in the near future. Our generation seems to lack the on-screen chemistry of yesteryear, chemistry found in the likes of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, Abbott and Costello, or even Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Call me crazy, but I think Kutcher and Heigel have what it takes to give the moviegoer a number of different characters thrown together by fate.

By C. E. Moore

GENRE: SCI-FI
RATING: R
STUDIO: WARNER BROS.
THEATRICAL RELEASE: JUNE 4, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

Splice is meant to push the boundaries of ethical quandary, to raise questions of science without borders. I’m not sure it did all that. I don’t foresee human/reptilian gene splicing happening anytime soon. Even more, I doubt if it happened it would be anything along the lines of what this movie portrays. But, the monstrous creature that evolves in the film is more like a stark, yet fictitious, caricature of an ethical reality none of us want to see realized for fear of the slope becoming that much more slippery. That being said, Splice is a nice, dark piece of escapism—even if a tad bid absurd.

Sarah Polley and Adrien Brody turn in performances as Elsa and Clive, two scientists bent on defying the rules to push science to its limits. The product of their boundary-pushing is “Dren” – a partially human, partially-everything else hybrid. But Dren is not some cold, unfeeling creature that simply runs amok and must be put down. That’d be too easy. And, since this movie is all about “raising questions,” we are treated to the scientists breaking the rules, developing parental feelings for their creation whilst switching ethical standpoints throughout the film, Dren’s maturing into a full-blown Oedipus complex (complete with ungodly human-human hybrid sex scene), and then a human-human hybrid rape and subsequent pregnancy. It’s all told well. It just sounds ridiculous when you’re trying to explain it to people who are thinking about going to see it. Even more, the acting here was a bit annoying. Polly comes across as rather whiny and Brody comes across as a spineless wuss.

Is it worth seeing? Eh. I wouldn’t exactly recommend it. It’s a good enough thriller and I can’t think of too many films that have played with this particular territory in this specific manner. So, if you’re looking for a fair thriller, sure, go see it. If you’re looking for a film that raises ethical questions you’ll actually consider, this might not be it. I doubt any rational moviegoer is going to walk out thinking, “You see? Human/reptilian gene splicing is wrong because you’re just going to end up with a creature that can breath underwater, sprout wings, then go crazy and rape its creators.” Good films that raise ethical questions (even if you disagree with their overall conclusions) come in the form of more nuanced films like Cider House Rules and Million Dollar Baby. Splice is a popcorn film that you can escape into and walk away from a little more weirded out than when you walked in. That’s about it.

GENRE: ACTION ADVENTURE
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: UNIVERSAL
THEATRICAL RELEASE: MAY 14, 2010
DVD RELEASE: OCTOBER 2010

I wish I had known the newest Russell Crowe vehicle, Robin Hood was going to be more like a Batman Begins origin story than a retelling of the Robin Hood legend. I went into the film with the expectation of being briefly introduced to the character, see him become an outlaw, befriend a band a misfits, then begin plundering the rich to give to the poor. But, there was none of that. Instead, I was treated to an action adventure piece more akin to Gladiator or Braveheart. I suppose I should not be surprised though. The film reunited Crowe with Gladiator director, Ridley Scott.

Here’s the basic plot. Robin and what will become his band of merry men are fighting alongside King Richard as he nears the end of his most recent Crusade—a crusade that has bled his country’s resources dry. The king is killed during the skirmish and the men returning his crown to England are ambushed and killed by a man who has betrayed them to the French. This all leads to the viewer being dragged from archaic sounding English locales to give the film a more authentic feel. What this actually accomplished was a feeling of sitting through a history lesson as dry dialogue managed to mingle with dry acting and very little action…or plot. Eventually, we’re treated to a Braveheart-esque soliloquy from Robin in order to rally the English to defeat the French. There are horses, a few bows and arrows as a reminder that “This is Robin Hood,” period clothing, sweeping vistas meant to “take us into the story,” and a few other things that were forgettable. They all fall flat. I kept waiting for a scene of Crowe walking through a field of golden wheat or for Joaquin Phoenix to step out and ask/shout, “Am I not merciful?”

This movie was sold under the auspices of experiencing Robin Hood “as you’ve never seen him before.” Well, that is true. This is the Smallville of Robin Hoods. It’s not bad, but if you’re going to re-film Braveheart, then just say that’s what you’re doing. I’m never against Ridley Scott and Crowe getting together. They’re like [Johnny] Depp and [Tim] Burton—box office gold without the feelings of weirdness. But, this isn’t Robin Hood. [Kevin] Costner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, though slightly cheesier, remains a much better film for those interested in a live action Robin Hood film. However, as Robin Hood ends at the beginning of what we know to be the myth we’ve all come to know and love, should Scott and Crowe film another film as a follow-up, I think viewers would be in for the best Robin Hood film ever committed to film. At the moment, we have a film called Robin Hood that lacks the spirit and characteristics necessary for viewers to buy it.

By Grant Hooper

GENRE: ACTION ADVENTURE
RATING: PG-13
STUDIO: WARNER BROS.
THEATRICAL RELEASE: MARCH 26, 2010
DVD RELEASE: JULY 27, 2010

Clash of the Titans is equivalent to the candy sold at movie theatres. Thinking about it makes you salivate and it seems like a great idea at the time—but when you open the box it’s half full of air. Afterwards, you’re still hungry, penniless, and having traded style for substance, the meal is a meagre one indeed.

When a film fails to connect on an emotional level with its audience, no amount of money, special effects, or great actors or actresses will rescue it. There is a serious problem when main characters are dying and it evokes no emotional response.  The suspense is built, the scene slows down, cue the dramatic music and let the cameras roll.  As if director Louis Leterrier actually believes that he has been telling an engaging story in which we have come to deeply care about the characters being portrayed on screen—as if audience sentiment is something that is automatically earned without effort. Tip for Mr. Leterrier:  you can’t kill someone off in the opening scene and expect your audience to be moved and, likewise, you can’t pull the plug on under-developed, under-acted, and poorly written characters, and expect a reaction.

Leading this ensemble cast of poorly written characters is Sam Worthington as Perseus, a vengeful warrior with the blood of both gods and men running through his blood.

Having some Deja Vu?

Half man, half machine, Sam Worthington in Terminator Salvation! Half man, half flying, blue, smurf creature, Sam Worthington is Avatar!

This film might mark the moment Sam Worthington realizes you can only play the same character over and over again for so long—unless you’re Samuel l. Jackson. Am I the only one who noticed this? Not even your agent, Sam?

Anyways, Worthington is poorly written character number one. Poorly written character number two is Perseus’ god-of-men father, Zeus, portrayed by Liam Neeson, who I must actually commend for typically picking well-suited roles. Zeus breathes life into man. Man rebels against the gods. Oddly enough, the reason why is never explained. So Zeus enlists his evil brother Hades to attempt and “forcibly persuade” men back into service to the gods, but we find that Hades has an evil scheme to gain power, kill the gods, and rule men with a blackened, iron-rod. Out of options, Zeus turns to last-hope-for-humanity Perseus to defeat Hades and restore peace among gods and men.

If it all sounds familiar, the reason may be that Titans is based on of a 1981 film by the same title. What could the possible reasoning be behind remaking crappy movies? It just goes to prove that director Leterrier is pretentious to the thirty-third degree and has no respect for his audiences. Why would he? He hijacked The Hulk from Ang Lee, replaced the lead with Edward Norton, and made a film completely void of a single, innovative idea—and audiences still flocked to see it.

In Titans, all concepts seem to be cheap, hand-me-downs. Even the last-minute decision to delay the release and convert the film to 3-D is a play on the success of Avatar. The result is comparable to the analogy: Avatar’s 3-D is to Titan’s 3-D as house is to shanty.

To assume that all you have to do is get a few popular actors, mix in some gratuitous violence and cool special effects, top it off with a pair of 3-D glasses and the rest will work itself out is straight-up fraud. The United Nations should have a binding resolution that ships Leterrier to Iran or North Korea and see if he has the nerve to peddle this stuff over there.