Review: District 9

Now this was a fantastic movie. I usually like to keep a certain level of ambiguity about my enjoyment of a film, because most often I enjoy certain parts of a movie while not enjoying other aspects. Perhaps the film is technically outstanding but fails to strike an emotional chord with the audience; or maybe the film is groundbreaking in theory or on paper but technical inadequacies don't properly communicate the director's intentions. Most films, I find, fall somewhere in between these two extremes, but occasionally there comes along a movie that strikes a perfect balance.

As has become something of a regular habit of mine, I went into District 9 as uninformed as was able. I saw two trailers for the film, which probably was one too many, for the second gave away too much of the plot but still the specifics of the story were entirely unknown to me. I love the excitement of not knowing plot details, but still having some level of assurance that it will be a quality film.

District 9 is the kind of film that sucks you in almost from the moment the first frame flashes across the screen. Director Niell Blomkamp employs a documentary style storytelling method to great success throughout, though it's particularly engrossing during the first half of the film. Some might say it emulates the hand-held film style Cloverfield pioneered, and to a degree it does, but I think what separates District 9 from the former is how it feels more like a tv broadcast while Cloverfield was meant to feel like a home video. Both styles are similar, but subtly different.

Another element of District 9 that helped create a unique atmosphere for the film was the actors and setting. The film takes place entirely in Johannesburg, South Africa and features only South African actors to my knowledge (with the exception of Jed Brophy, who makes cameos in all movies tied to Peter Jackson). I had never seen a movie set in South Africa, nor had I observed many South African actors. Their accents are peculiar, and (at least in my experience) added a very unique feel to the movie. More than their accents, however, what makes the actors' work so memorable was what I felt was a kind of raw quality. Because the acting is so good it's easy to forget that these aren't real people at all. All the elements of the storytelling fit together precisely in such a way that the film universe is seamless.

The story was very good, and not exactly typical for a sci-fi action film. Thanks to that second trailer, part of the main character's story arc was almost ruined for me but it doesn't prevent the story itself from being very solid. Part of the main character's story involves him trying to re-connect with his estranged wife, an important element that almost fades a little too far into the background during the later half of the movie but is poignantly brought back to the foreground at the close. Fortunately enough, every element of the story that I had concerns about as the movie progressed were elegantly dealt with almost as soon as it popped into mind. I don't know whether to attribute the masterful story handling to beginner's luck for Mr. Blomkamp or to Peter Jackson's more experienced hand of influence in the film but ultimately it doesn't matter because the movie benefits regardless.

I can't write the entire review without mentioning how cool the aliens and the technology look. Having Peter Jackson backing the production, of course, included the resources of world class studio Weta Digital, whose work has become something of a favorite for me. But all the words in the world can't paint a picture as vivid as the artists at Weta can do, so just rest assured the production values are outstanding.

Even in a genre as over stuffed as science fiction, District 9 manages to carve out more than enough breathing room for itself. Blomkamp's first feature length film is a resounding success and will almost certainly take its place as a sci fi action classic alongside James Cameron classics like Terminator 2 and Aliens. The door is obviously left open for a potential sequel, which I would very much look forward to, but regardless I anxiously await Mr. Blomkamp's next project.

9/10

District 9

Directed by Niell Blomkamp

Produced by Peter Jackson, Bill Block, Ken Kamins, Paul Hanson, Elliot Fernwerda

Written by Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell

Starring Jason Cope, Robert Hobbs, Sharlto Copley

Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language

Review: Moon

I am always excited when I see a film about which I haven't even the slightest clue. I love the anticipation, the not-knowing that comes along with an original film (assuming there is such a thing as an original film anymore). So far this summer, I have seen one movie that was not a sequel, reboot or re-imagining of an already established franchise (actually two, counting Pixar's delightful "Up,"). I don't mean to suggest that I'm sick of big, loud action/effects heavy sequels/reboots/re-imaginings, not at all. I just mean that I tend to feel a little more excited about original material, if for no reason other than the fact that original films are unfamiliar territory. It's not uncommon to basically anticipate every plot twist and every new character for the big budget action sequels of summer (thanks to all the hype they accumulate), but fresh original films are unknown, which is always fun for the viewer.

"Moon" marks the directorial debut of English film director Duncan Jones, and for a first time effort, the film is an overall success. Featuring only one real character, Sam Bell, (portrayed admirably by Sam Rockwell), "Moon" is a deceptively simple story about a man working on the moon. He's overseeing the harvesting process for Helium-3 - an answer to Earth's growing energy crisis. He's worked a 3 year contract (nearing the end of it) and he's worked it alone, save for the AI construct "Gerty" designed to keep him company and meet his needs. Just as his contract nears a close and his replacement should be sent from Earth, Sam begins to experience hallucinations and an unfortunate series of events leads to a life-threatening accident on the lunar surface. To give away anything more would invite plot spoilers, but there are several big twists and turns in store for viewers that significantly alter the way events unfold.

There were a couple of problems I had with "Moon" once the final credits began to roll. The first (and arguably most offensive) was the timing and manner in which the big twist was revealed. Usually saved for the end of a film (for maximum dramatic effect), these shifts in perspective often give the audience a reason to go back and watch a movie again with a more enlightened perspective. In "Moon," the twist is revealed relatively early on - before the half way point in the movie actually. The twist itself is very interesting, if a little uninspired, but the fact that it was unveiled so early on left the film feeling a little unclear. Things felt aimless throughout the middle section of the movie, as though there were no clear direction for events to move toward. The film flirts with boredom in places, but just barely manages to keep enough intrigue to hold attention. Imagine that in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense," Bruce Willis' character is revealed to be a ghost/dead person around 1/3 of the way into things and you might have an idea of what to expect from "Moon." The revelation left me asking, "Ok, cool twist...but what now? Where do things go from here?" Unfortunately, the middle section progresses onward without actually answering those questions.

I do think it important to mention the acting chops on Sam Rockwell. Not every actor in the world can carry a movie on their shoulders nearly single-handedly, but Rockwell manages to pull it off effectively. He's not quite Tom Hanks in "Cast Away," but he performs admirably enough. Kevin Spacey lends monotone, droll voice talent to the AI computer "Gerty," who, in a refreshing take on an over-used character in the sci-fi genre, actually turns out to be a good guy. The film draws obvious inspiration from the seminal classic 2001: A Space Odyssey, and pays tribute to other sci-fi flicks of the past(perhaps a little too closely at times) where it is due. If there is one thing that turned out to be truly disappointing about "Moon," I'd have to say it was the fact that it all felt very familiar, ironically enough. I went in to the theater expecting something fresh and unique, and found a movie that felt quite similar to many other sci-fi hits, both contemporary and classic.

"Moon" is respectable sci-fi drama, heavy on the emotional weight of characters and light on the action. It's far from perfect, but I still enjoyed it enough to recommend it to sci-fi fans who happen to be interested. I'm not sure I'd see it more than once in theaters (certainly wouldn't spend $20 on the dvd brand new), but I might pick it up if I find it one day in the $5 bin.

6/10

Moon

Directed by Duncan Jones

Produced by Stuart Fenegan, Trudie Styler

Written by Duncan Jones, Nathan Parker

Starring Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey (voice)

Rated R for language

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Greetings fellow cinema fans! I apologize for the almost 2 month gap in reviews, but in my defense I have had an incredibly busy 2 months.  But of course, I know you didn't navigate the treacherous waters of the internet towards my blog-beacon of brilliance to read my excuses so I'll move on.  Summer has officially descended upon us and with it a new wave of big-budget effects film releases.  Directed by f--- the-world-I'm-gonna-do-things-my-way director Michael Bay, the first Transformers film was certainly more about style than substance and this bigger and better sequel continues in the same vein.  I've always believed that strong acting, storytelling and pacing are essential for any film, but especially for a film so heavily reliant on visual effects.  Computer generated effects have a tendency to instantly disconnect audiences from a movie, which makes the acting, story and pacing all the more important to help keep the viewer grounded.  Michael Bay it seems does not agree with these principles and prefers to keep his audiences glues to the screen by sheer force of overwhelming and incomprehensible action and intensity.  I find myself wondering exactly why Bay was chosen to helm this franchise, being a director who has a fondness for crude, shallow humor and inability to establish strong memorable characters.  Despite all the problems I have with Bay and his style of storytelling, I walked away from Transformers 2 happier with the end result than I did after the first film. 

For me, Transformers has always been about the robots.  Maybe it's juvenile, childish and immature or (heaven forbid) maybe it's engrossing storytelling but either way I'm a fan of the Transformers universe.  I love learning about the robot's home world Cybertron, the ancient race of robots that existed before the Autobots and Decepticons, the pseudo-spiritual aspects of the Transformers after-life, the Cybertronian icons like the all-spark, the Matrix of Leadership, protoforms, stasis-lock, all that geeky stuff.  That said, one problem I have with both movies is the lack of attention showed to the robots.  The first film offends more in this department than the second, but still I don't think I'll ever be able to understand why Michael Bay felt the need to include so many human characters in an already over-stuffed universe of robot characters.  I can understand the need to establish Sam, his parents and maybe the Mikaela character but any more than that an you risk forcing out robot characters, the real reason I want to see the movie.  But Bay doesn't see the line that I see, and decided to include (alongside Sam, his family and girlfriend) a roommate, hot new girl, former government agent, military general, army buddies, government intruder-guy...the list goes on - not including the dozen or so main Autobot and Decepticon characters, of course.  The unfortunate result of jamming in so many characters is that none of them are allowed breathing room, none of them manages to plant an emotional or dramatic foot in the viewers' minds and the robot characters especially feel shallow.  Being familiar with the Transformers universe, it really is a shame that Bay doesn't do these characters justice.  

Another problem I have with the film is how unlike the show it is in just about every aspect.  In the show, Autobots are defensive, only acting when the Decepticons force their hands.  Autobots are on earth to protect humans, period.  Decepticons are on earth to collect energon, which often means endangering human lives which moves the Autobots into action.  In the film, Autobots are proactive in hunting down and violently destroying Decepticons.  Indeed it is difficult to determine a real difference between Autobot and Decepticon apart from simple colors.  Both races have a brutal, visceral quality to their combat and seemingly enjoy violently dismembering their opponents.  This behavior is fitting for Decepticons, but wildly out of place for the Autobots.  The brutal fighting is a marvel to behold on a technical level, but as a Transformers fan it feels unnatural to see Autobot characters reveling in the complete destruction of fellow robots, even if they are Decepticons.  By far the worst part about the film has to be the inclusion of the "twins," Mudflap and Skids.  These characters, designed to look like caricatured apes, speak in a street slang and confess an inability to read.  One is given an oversized single gold tooth.  These two characters are repeatedly offensive and are a real embarrassment for all involved in the film.  Bay should be ashamed of himself for including this kind of stereotypical racist humor.

But despite all the negativity I've spewed out until this point, I did enjoy this sequel more than the original film.  The storyline is much more involved in the Transformers universe than the story in the first film, which is a very good thing in my opinion.  There are fewer human characters, which helps take some unnecessary weight from the shoulders of the film and frees up more space for robot characters to develop.  The story itself is more outlandish which helps it feel more like an adaptation of a cartoon show than the first film, which most people I imagine will see as a negative aspect of the story, but I feel it is more appropriate and fitting for a film based on...a cartoon show.  I've heard and read complaints that the story is incomprehensible to those unacquainted with the Transformers world, but I see no problem with that.  The Transformers universe is a complicated thing for the uninitiated, but I'm not uninitiated.  I understood the story just fine, because I am familiar with the Transformers world.  Furthermore, why make a Transformers movie if it's not for Transformers fans?  Who, besides Transformers fans really wants to see a Transformers movie?  It only makes sense to build the story for a Transformers movie around the Transformers world, and in that regard I do applaud Michael Bay. 

Overall, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a step in the right direction for the franchise, but not far enough.  I feel that Michael Bay is simply not the right director for Transformers, but I also feel that this movie is as close as he is going to get to delivering it justice on the big screen.  I'm sure there will be another film in the coming years, but hopefully it will be coming from a director with a little more good taste and proper feel for pacing.  I'm not sure the franchise can handle another movie packed to the brim with nonstop action, explosions and robot parts flying to and fro across the screen. Hopefully, the filmmakers will see the merits of a (robot) character driven story and cut the human fat from the film.  At any rate, not a terrible movie but still carrying some fundamental flaws.  

6/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Directed by Michael Bay

Produced by Steven Spielberg, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Ian Bryce, Tom DeSanto, Don Murphy

Written by Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Ehren Kruger

Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro

With the voice talents of:  Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving, Mark Ryan, Frank Welker, Jess Harnell, Charlie Adler, Robert Foxworth, Tony Todd, Tom Kenny, Grey DeLisle, Andre Sogliuzzo

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material. 

Star Trek Review

Hoo boy do I love this movie.  And I was totally ready to hate it too.  I grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation and developed a huge appreciation for the series' attention to detail, believability and subtle character development. Therefore, I have been skeptical but hopeful over the past few years following the development and production of this reboot.  But as a huge fan of Star Trek, I have certain standards I expect any entry of the series to meet and this film was setting itself it up to be a disappointment for me. Having a self proclaimed "casual" Star Trek fan direct the new Star Trek movie = strike 1.  Intentionally designing the movie to cater to a general audience = strike 2.  So, for me, the movie was on thin ice and any one problem could have been the proverbial strike 3.  But, instead of returning to the bench hanging its head in shame, JJ Abrams' Star Trek launches that 0 - 2 pitch out of the ballpark and this Trek fan couldn't be happier about it.

As I said earlier, one of the things I appreciate so much about Star Trek is the attention to detail and believability.  But in general public terms, attention to detail often translates to "dull and boring."  The average movie-goer doesn't care how the quasar pulse generators impact deflector shield efficiency, but as a Star Trek fan, I expect a Star Trek movie to include details like that.  The average movie-goer doesn't care about how Klingon - Romulan politics have evolved over the last 150 years.  But as a Star Trek fan, I expect a Star Trek movie to include those little details.  But all these little details used to be so important in Star Trek movies because they were created after a TV show.  As a fan of The Next Generation, it only stands to reason that a movie would stay true to the details of the show.  But that very thing, while respectful to the fans and honoring to the show, is what prevents the general population from enjoying earlier Star Trek films. JJ Abrams and his writers brilliantly avoid that catch 22 with their new film in a way that simultaneously respects fans and the old show but remains open to the general population:  they set the movie in an alternate dimension.  

Time travel is not an unexplored concept in the Star Trek pantheon of films.  In fact, it's become almost uncommon for a Star Trek film not to include at least some element of time manipulation.  But, by having Spock and this film's baddie, Nero, not only travel back in time but also to an alternate dimension (where this universe's future has yet to be written), the new film can forge a new mythology and structure all to itself.  While this film drastically alters certain elements of the Star Trek formula, it's all perfectly ok because it happens in an alternate dimension.  Star Trek fans can't complain about the fact that the engines don't function the same way the did in the old show, because maybe the engines in this Star Trek universe function a little differently.  Fans can't complain about the fact that this new film doesn't stay true to the politics of the old series because maybe the politics of this dimension progress differently.  And casual fans don't have to worry about the film being weighed down with those "unnecessary" details.  The film forges a new identity for itself on a clean slate, but still manages to not step on the toes of the old series.  Abrams and his writers were brilliant, absolutely brilliant, for including this one small but profoundly significant detail. 

The film is sleek, sexy and bold in just about every way.  The Enterprise is designed a little more realistically than it used to be, with a noticeable design inspiration coming from your local Apple store.  The action is intense, unpredictable and gripping.  The story is, admittedly, a little thin, particularly in the area of our villian, Captain Nero, but it's not really something that hinders enjoyment of the film.  His motivations are stretched just a little bit to far for me to keep a total sense of believability.  True, his planet is destroyed in his future, but the time travel trip sends him back to a time when his home planet is still intact.  And furthermore, instead of going back home and enjoying life there, Nero waits 25 years for the character responsible to show up so he can pay for his "crimes."  I thought that was just a little too much to ask for from this fan.  And Nero's ship, a massive mining vessel, is inexplicably designed both on the inside and out.  A collection of intimidating and endlessly complex spikes, spires and spines, the ship is armed to the teeth with devastating weaponry (what are these advance torpedoes and missiles doing on a mining vessel again?) and fraught with peril on the inside as well.  Whoever designed the inside of the vessel was an idiot (from the standpoint of functionality). There are bottomless abyss-like drops, tiny little platforms for walking across and no handrails either.  It's almost like the ship was designed to make it easier for people to die inside it.  As a movie set for housing our villain, it's amazing.  As a functioning mining vessel, it's a failure.

But I admit, Star Trek rises above these nitpicking little flaws and leaves them in the dust.  The film gets everything else so right that I don't even care about how Nero's ship doesn't make sense or his motivations are a little muddy.  He provides a bad guy for our heroes to combat, and for that he serves his purpose.  I have only the utmost respect for Abrams for not only pulling this off, but doing it so incredibly well. The cast is spot on (staying true to the characters without simply imitating the original cast), the action is breathtaking, the characters are endearing, the humor is well used and the future is open to endless possibilities.  The only real disappointment I experienced is that there is no TV show to accompany the film.  Instead of waiting only a week till the next adventure, it will be years before I am reunited with the crew of the Enterprise for another (hopefully) rousing journey across the stars.  But for what this film is and all it was up against for me, I can't imagine Star Trek being any better.

9/10

Star Trek

Directed by JJ Abrams

Produced by JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof

Written by (Screenplay) Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman; (Characters) Gene Roddenberry

Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Zoey Saldana, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg

Music by Michael Giacchino

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content

The Matrix Review

Ok, here it is:  my personal take on what has become a rather controversial series in discussions among myself and friends.  Opinions vary greatly about the merits of these movies, ranging from the intensely loyal fan base who fiercely defends the trilogy as a whole against any an all who would dare speak any ill of its philosophical and pseudo-spiritual magnificence to other viewers at the other end of the spectrum who (generally) see a falloff of quality in films 2 and 3.  I tend to count myself in the second category of Matrix fans, but I'm getting ahead of myself.  

The film follows the classic pattern of character progression molded after Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Odyssey, Beowulf, King Arthur and countless other hero stories.  Our main character, Neo, starts out as a average, unspectacular person called into an adventure, is forged and hardened through trials and tribulations of the most difficult kind and emerges a warrior, a hero, a legend.  He has a wise mentor to guide and help develop him, a turncoat to confuse and hinder him, a love interest to anchor him and even minor jester to entertain.  Its a structure that's been used before an untold number of times, but it is a structure that works well.  One of the things I feel is most important about Neo is that he is a normal, average person at the outset.  The Matrix tells a story that requires a lot of outside-the-box thinking just to understand, and it helps the viewer immensely to have the main character be just as confused as we are about the order of things.  I feel it is vitally important that we can connect with Neo, and that the viewer progresses toward understanding alongside him.

I do not, however, believe the actual story of the Matrix is as mind-blowing as it is often perceived to be.  The idea of humans being enslaved to their own creations is not an original idea, after all. The Wachowski Brothers add enough of their own ideas to help their vision achieve a certain level of uniqueness, but the concept itself has been explored before.  What makes this movie so enjoyable to watch is the delivery.  The first third of the film, its almost like you can sense the movie laughing at your feeble attempts to understand it.  The Matrix has a secret to tell you, but it only reveals enough to keep you coming back for more.  It knows it has you hooked, but it just enjoys toying with your mind too much to spoil the secret too soon.  It drags you along till you've just about had enough of its crap, then, almost as if it becomes offended that you're not having as much fun as it is, the film gives in and smacks you across the face with the reality of things and you're left wondering what the heck just happened. One minute, Neo has the mercury-like mirror substance crawling up his arm, then he wakes up in a jelly filled life-pod, then he's flushed down the proverbial toilet, then he's whisked up into a crappy looking hovercraft.  The first time around, the Matrix is definitely a mind job, but that's exactly what makes it so appealing.  The moment where it finally clicks, when you finally understand what the Matrix is and the implications such a thing carries with it, is what makes the movie such a powerful experience.  The story is very good; it's definitely solid.  But without the expert delivery, it would be a much less satisfying experience. 

Another thing I like about the film is how well things are tied off at the end, but still enough intrigue is left for the viewer to wonder about what is to come.  All the immediate problems presented in the first film are addressed.  Neo completes a full hero cycle, the mystery of what the Matrix is is solved, Agent Smith is destroyed, Morpheus is saved, the spy/turncoat is found out and eliminated, and Neo and Trinity declare their love.  But the story is not entirely complete and the viewer still is left wondering how mankind will be freed and the machines as a whole will be eliminated.  Of course, the fact that the humans now have an all-powerful near-deity on their side makes the future seem just a little brighter than it once was.  All in all, I appreciate how the film stands on its own legs and can be enjoyed independently from its sequels, despite the fact that it is only the first installment.

The Matrix is a landmark film.  Its bold storytelling and expert delivery paved the way for other films to try creative and unique approaches to filmmaking.  For those contributions alone, I feel the Matrix earns its spot among the most influential films of all time.  An all-around incredibly satisfying experience.

10/10

The Matrix

Written, produced, and directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski

Produced by Joel Silver

Starring Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Joe Pantoliano, Hugo Weaving

Rated R for sci-fi violence and some language

Pitch Black Review

I think I first came across Pitch Black in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart several years ago.  I remembered a trailer for the film I had seen at some point, specifically the one defining scene where a dude alone in the dark does a fire-spitting trick and lights up the darkness only to find he is surrounded by fearsome alien creatures.  I always thought it was a cool shot, and I pretty much paid $5 to see the context for that scene to unfold.  Thankfully enough, the film is pretty good, even though I wouldn't recommend making purchases based on one scene because rarely are the results as all around pleasing as Pitch Black is. 

This sci-fi/horror action film follows the story of a crew that survives a crash landing on an unfamiliar world.  The stranded passengers are dropped into a survival situation where food, water and shelter become paramount.  The world they crash on is lit 24 hours a day (or however many hours are in the day of this planet) by two suns, i.e. there is no nighttime which makes for a unique challenge.  After the survival essentials are covered, the team discovers a way to escape the planet in a shuttle they find at an abandoned settlement.  They believe their main problem is the escaped convict, Riddick, who they believe will stop at nothing to kill them all and take the shuttle for himself.  To make a long story short, the planet is eventually caught in a full solar eclipse, ending the never-ending daylight and plunging the world into darkness.  The team quickly is confronted with vicious creatures that only emerge during this darkness and they ally with Riddick in an attempt to ward off the creatures and escape the planet. 

The first thing I really like about this flick is the setting and visual effects.  It's got a late 70's, early 80's dirty, real-world sci-fi feel about it, very reminiscent of the first two Alien movies.  The film does a good job of subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) paying homage to those defining genre classics but still forging enough of an identity to stand on its own.  The characters are grounded, believable and they interact with each other in realistic ways.  One character in particular annoyed the crap out of me, but not because he was poorly portrayed or written.  His personality just pissed me off, which actually could be considered commendable in a piece of art.  Emotional response is one of the key things artists should strive for in their work, after all.  The real star of this show is Vin Diesel in, what I feel, is his best movie to date.  This character fits him like a glove and it really seems like Mr. Diesel enjoys slipping into that gravelly deep voice and quietly disappearing into the darkness.  I think it also should be mentioned that Vin Diesel swears like a pro.  Swearing is an art; some people suck at it and shouldn't do it.  For others, swearing flows naturally and it enhances the character.  Vin Diesel most assuredly fits into the latter category.

There are only a few very minor things about the film I noticed.  There's a level of inconsistency with the effects which is a little distracting.  Some of the effects are poorly done (like the twin suns) and some are pretty good (the creatures).  I kind of wondered who the main character is supposed to be, because we kind of have two.  The first half of the film seems more centered on the ship's pilot, Carolyn, but the second half shifts the focus to include Riddick and the "twist" ending definitely leaves the film with the center of attention squarely on him.  But this isn't really even a minor problem, just something I noticed. 

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with Pitch Black.  My expectations were admittedly low when I scraped this title out of the pile of bargain bin garbage, but thankfully I came out with a minor Sci-Fi/Horror classic.  I think one of the characteristics about the film I like the most is that it never thinks too much of itself.  There's no bloated, self absorbed, cliched showdown with a queen monster, no starfighter shootout over a mega death weapon gearing up to destroy a planet...just a small group of terrified survivors fighting for the lives at every turn.  It's a low-key personal story, which is the main reason I enjoyed it. 

7/10

Pitch Black

Directed by David Twohy

Written by Jim and Ken Wheat; Screenplay by Jim and Ken Wheat, and David Twohy

Starring Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell, Cole Hauser, Keith David, Lewis Fitz-Gerald

Rated R for sci-fi violence and gore, and for language

X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review

My word...where to begin?  Well for starters, I'll say that I was a big fan of X-Men back in the day.  The first film pretty much established the modern superhero film genre and the second film still stands among the top 5 superhero films of all time in my opinion.  Then Bryan Singer left the franchise for Superman, and the series went to pot. X-Men: The Last Stand barely achieves mediocrity, but only because of what was already established by Singer and Co. in X2.  The first two films were handled gracefully and intelligently.  The third film and subsequently, this prequel film are packed with cliches, poorly directed action and an emphasis on quantity over quality.  

First off, there is simply too much happening at too quick a pace in Wolverine.  About a hundred and twenty years worth of story is glossed over in less than ten minutes and sequences that could have served for an entire movie in and of themselves are whisked along without hesitation.  The result leaves the audience without much opportunity to connect with Logan/Jimmy/Wolverine.  Life-changing events for Logan transpire in moments and are gone before any impact can be felt.  Therefore, Logan's torment and desire for revenge never connect in a believable way.  I know I sat in the theatre not really caring if Logan got his revenge or not, but still quite positive that he would achieve it anyway.  

The movie is also overstuffed with characters, unfortunately.  It is a problem that has been evident in all the movies, but it's especially unnecessary in this prequel.  After all, the movie is (or should have been) all about one character and his journey.  Instead, we get Logan, his half-brother Victor, a 7 member team of mutants, none of whom are even recognizable to anyone who isn't a diehard Marvel fanboy (and I speak as a casual Marvel fan myself), and brief cameos from a young Cyclops, Emma Frost, Silverfox, Gambit and even the good Professor himself.  I'm not even counting the rabble of random freak mutants rescued from captivity at the end of the film (some 10-15 more).  Another problem run into, especially the later you get into the X-Men universe, is the recycling of powers.  We have new characters introduced, but they have the same powers already seen in earlier characters (i.e. Kestrel, who can teleport which we've already seen more impressively with Nightcrawler).   The main difference is, of course, that no one cares about Kestrel.  It's mutant overkill, and the main quest (if it can be called that) is lost among everything else happening.  

The story itself is passable until the end.  Stryker's whole idea of pooling mutants' powers into one super villain is quite simply, stupid.  It's unnecessarily "epic" in this film, which should have been much more personal and intimate.  I was hoping for a story that helped us understand Logan's character better, a film with a much slower pace, less action and more intelligent use of supporting characters that have a significant impact on the shaping of Logan's character.  Instead we have a bloated, action saturated, cliche-filled romp that moves at light speed pacing with so many explosions, primal roars, awful sideburns and half-naked men that it makes you sick.  Another specific detail that I felt was dumb was the sheer number of "claw shots."  Those claws spend so much time on-screen, center-screen that you begin to feel the movie is more about the claws than it is about anything else.  The action sequences are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  The dramatic scenes are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  The comedic moments are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  Enough is enough! ( I won't even go into how physically impossible it is that the claws exist at all)

There is plenty of talk around about how more prequel movies could be made in the X-Men series, potentially about Magneto, Gambit and even Deadpool.  I, for one, think this series should be officially laid to rest as a film franchise.  None of those characters, I feel, is strong enough to support an entire movie based around their story, especially with these filmmakers at the helm.  X-Men is a comic book universe and it should stick to that medium, especially when the film results are this bad. 

4/10

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Directed by Gavin Hood

Written by David Benioff and Skip Woods

Starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, William J. Adams (I refuse to refer to him as Will.i.am), Lynn Collins, Daniel Henney, Kevin Durand, Dominic Monaghan, Taylor Kitsch, Ryan Reynolds

Music by Harry Gregson-Williams

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity