Jurassic Park

I couldn't remember the last time I sat down and watched 1993's Jurassic Park. In my teenage years -- better known as the late 90s -- this movie was on TV seemingly every day on countless channels....and I watched it a ton. But that whole mildly successful sequel, 2015's Jurassic World, threw me right back into the franchise. Sure, the sequel was a lot of mindless, stupid fun, but the original is almost always better. A true classic. A gem. A must-see. Jurassic Park.

Working at a fossil/dig site in Montana, paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) are in the midst of unearthing a huge find...when they're interrupted by a helicopter carrying a bazillionaire philanthropist, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), who has an odd request for them. He's asking them to come examine, experience and see a new theme park he's spent years building, promising quite the paycheck if they come along. They do, flying out to Isla Nubar, an island in the Pacific off the coast of Costa Rica, not sure what they've gotten themselves in to. Along with them is a brilliant mathematician, Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), who's equally curious. What exactly is Hammond behind? The entire group is stunned to find that somehow, some way, Hammond and his bioengineering company, InGen, has managed to create real-life dinosaurs and not just one, but many different species. The plan to open the theme park to the public couldn't possibly work, could it? There are just too many things that could go wrong....right?

My goodness. What a freaking movie. It's hard to believe it has been 22 years since the original and by far still the best of the series hit theaters way back in 1993. It's hard to believe for so many reasons. One, it impacted countless movies after. The technology on display here helped rewrite Hollywood with big, broad strokes. What 'Park' did with its computer-generated effects is nothing short of extraordinary, and almost every movie released since featuring any CGI owes a tip of the cap in this direction. The premise itself? Both inventively genius and criminally simplistic in its entertainment value. You can't say that for too many movies now, can you? Twenty-plus years later, it hasn't lost any of its edge, shock value or entertainment, director Steven Spielberg turning in a true classic, and a profoundly important movie in film history.

This 1993 scientifically-charged thriller is based off a novel from author Michael Crichton. The book is a gem, one of those great examples of what a perfect thriller can be. It's by no means a criticism to say that Spielberg's film is one of the few books as good as its source novel. Instead, it is a compliment to both film and novel. It will come as no shock that Hammond's idealistic park has its faults, resulting in an ever-growing body count, but 'Jurassic' does bring together intelligence and creativity with a straightforward survival story. Doesn't get any simpler than that. Run and get away or get eaten by a prehistoric dinosaur brought back from extinction. Oh, the movie looks great, what's real and what's CGI, and a little musical score from composer John Williams is pretty decent too. Maybe you've heard it? Listen HERE, a score and theme that becomes another character in a generally flawless movie.

Who doesn't love dinosaurs? Anyone? Bueller? Exactly. From kids to senior citizens and everyone in between, DINOSAURS ARE AWESOME. AWESOME I TELLS YA! Spielberg, Crichton and a heck of a crew from Industrial Light & Magic bring the dinosaurs to life, most notably the tyrannosaurus rex and the velociraptor, two of nature and history's most terrifying killing machines. The characters are excellent (more on the cast later), but it is the dinosaurs who steal the show. The T-Rex chasing down a fleeing jeep, the raptors hunting in packs, an attack always a blink away, these scenes of dinosaurs on the bloody hunt are scenes to behold, like Jaws on steroids. Spielberg builds the tension up to unbearable levels, water in a plastic cup shaking as a T-Rex approaches from the jungle. The horrifying realization that a raptor can open a door. These quiet, terrifying moments balance out with the hold onto your seat moments in impeccable fashion. Even knowing where these scenes are going, it....is....damn...frightening.

The best movies bring their stories to life, and that's where Jurassic Park succeeds at the highest levels. Whether it's the hint of the power and vicious hunting of a raptor or a chase across a grassy plain with a herd of gallimimus being chased down a T-Rex, these moments are exhilarating to watch as a moviegoer. All those creatures you saw in books, there they are, big as life, on the screen in front of you. Yeah, it produces some freaking scary moments once the dinos are loose, but from the moment we first see the dinosaurs, there is that feeling of being transported back to your childhood reading those books. We're seeing something that has been extinct for at least 65 million years. It sounds so simple to say that, but that is the simple, elegant beauty of this classic movie and its lasting impression, impact and quality. Just a gem.

The stars are the dinosaurs, but the human actors aren't too shabby either. I've always been a Neill fan, mostly because of this part as the pragmatic, highly intelligent Dr. Grant, amazed by what he sees but wary of these scientific developments. His chemistry with Dern's Ellie is spot-on, and the questioning trio is complete with a scene-stealing, never better Jeff Goldblum as questioning mathematician, Ian Malcolm. Throw in Attenborough (in his first acting role) since 1979, and you've got some thump at the top of the order. Also look for Samuel L. Jackson and Wayne Knight as park employees, BD Wong the bioengineer who helped create them, Bob Peck as Muldoon, the game hunter and park's game warden, Martin Ferrero as the $-for-eyes lawyer, and Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards as Tim and Lex, Hammond's grandkids visiting the island.

As an old man of 29 watching this -- as opposed to a know it all 12 year old -- I was able to appreciate the kick-ass dinosaurs, but also the intelligence, creativity and general smarts of the movie. I loved Malcolm's non-stop criticism, the destructive nature of the park no matter what it was intended for, leading to his immortal line 'Nature finds a way' in a phenomenal monologue. His chaos theory says that in the end, well, chaos will reign. You can't truly control what doesn't want to be controlled, especially dinosaurs. Creatures from literally millions of years ago, recreated and controlled? No way. As well, the way the dinosaurs are created is beyond ingenious, a credit to Crichton's writing ability and Spielberg's ability to flesh it out (and with some twists along the way about dinosaurs that are supposedly unable to reproduce). Yes, this is a huge action/thriller blockbuster, but it is also an incredibly intelligent and creative film. It works pretty effortlessly on basically every level possible.

Spielberg is an all-time great, a director with classics Jaws, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and the Indiana Jones movies to his name (among others). This is a film that definitely belongs on that list. A true classic on all levels. This will be a movie that down the road people still look back and marvel at it. Can't say enough about this classic. A gem, and a movie you most definitely should have seen by now.

Jurassic Park (1993): ****/****

Avengers: Age of Ultron

By all accounts, 2015 at the movie box office is the year of BIG MOVIES. Released in early April, Furious 7 zoomed past the $1 billion dollar mark already and was joined this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron, the next big thing in the Marvel franchise. The scary part for my nerdy self is there's still Mad Max, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Terminator, and of course, Star Wars to come in theaters. I loved Furious 7 and wouldn't you know it? I loved Avengers too.

In the Eastern European country of Sokovia, the Avengers -- Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) -- are able to fight their way into a Hydra outpost to recover Loki's all-powerful scepter. Back at the Avengers base, Tony Stark wants to use this power for good, using the scepter's power to create a brand of artificial intelligence that could shield the world, to protect it from all threats. Nothing goes quite to plan though as the artificial intelligence uses its ridiculous amount of pressure, calling itself Ultron (voice of James Spader), and escapes across the world's technology intent on destroying the Avengers and ultimately ruling the world. Can this ultra-powerful tool and weapon be stopped? At what cost? Once again, it comes down to the Avengers putting their differences aside to pull off a seemingly impossible mission.

It's been three years since the first Avengers movie hit theaters and tore apart the box office, earning $1.5 billion worldwide. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise that continues to pile up the money, and typically, positive reviews. Fans love them -- for the most part -- and I include myself in that list. These Avengers movies have become the perfect blockbuster, huge, sprawling action adventures with a crazy cast and crazier action. Director Joss Whedon returns to helm this sequel, and even he admits the work that goes into making these movies (Read...the intense, soul-crushing PRESSURE) is brutally tough. Whedon even wrote this daunting screenplay. Potential world-ending villains, double-digit MAIN characters, countless quick, cameo appearances, and the high expectations of the franchise's countless fans, man, that is a TON of pressure.

So yeah, reviews were a little more mixed here than with the first flick. Sure, there are some flaws and hiccups along the way. None of those flaw/hiccups proves to be too big a problem simply because these movies are so damn fun. Like all the franchise entries, there is a certain formula to follow, but 'Ultron' is able to tweak that formula a bit. All the characters are there, the witty banter, the great villains, the world-shattering action. The F-U-N. The story doesn't always make a ton of sense, but it becomes an issue of...well, does it really matter? You sit back, eat some popcorn and go for the ride. It's a relatively long movie at 141 minutes, but it never feels long. Things are moving too fast and there's too many moving pieces for this money-raking sequel to actually slow down.

The biggest appeal for me with the Avengers flicks above the action or the villains or all the craziness is the ridiculous cast. These casts, my goodness, they're epic. With so many characters, we don't always get the depth/development/background you might want, but Whedon's script certainly goes for it. We continue to see the budding rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America, the budding lovey-dovey relationship between Bruce Banner and Black Widow, and I thought the coolest part, getting to know the most-human members of the Avengers, Hawkeye and a secret he's been holding onto and Black Widow and her past as an assassin trained by the KGB. There's so much to cover, a movie clocking in at 141 simply can't give too much character development. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own -- and many of them have -- so when you combine them, it comes together pretty perfectly. There's almost too much talent for it NOT to work.

That cast, that ridiculous list of stars though, it simply isn't enough. Right? Right?!? We need more characters!!! James Spader is perfectly voice-cast as Ultron, the artificial intelligence hell-bent on destroying the world. Spader's voice is silky and smooth and droll and dripping with intimidation. Without ever appearing on-screen, Spader is a scene-stealer. Also joining him in the villains department are Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as the Twins, a Russian brother and sister with special powers, Pietro with super speed and Wanda with mental manipulation. Quite the interesting trio. Also appearing in smaller parts -- but necessary ones -- are Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Because of the behemoth that is the Marvel universe, there's also Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell, Stellan Skarsgard, Thomas Kretschmann, and because that wasn't enough, more characters including Linda Cardellini, Claudia Kim, Andy Serkis, and an expanded role -- a very cool one -- for Paul Bettany as Jarvis.

This may come as a bit of sacrilege, but I thought the weakest part of this money-raking sequel is actually the action itself. Look, here's my thoughts. It looks great. It looks polished. It looks CRAZY at times, but you just know none of it is real. It is all CGI to the point you get lost in it. There's not as much emotional punch. Action movies have become so reliant on this stuff that is becomes a crippling crutch. I haven't seen it yet but Mad Max: Fury Road is getting ridiculously positive reviews because the action is real. They went out and filmed it and did the stunts. To a certain extent, the same for Furious 7. The action is great and shown on a huge, world-shattering scale, but it's almost too polished. The exception is the destruction-riddled finale, an incredibly put-together extended action sequence that is able to blend the CGI with the characters and their bonds (and some twists along the way) in an extravaganza of fights and stunts and destruction.

Yeah, there are issues. With this much going on, it would be near impossible for there not to be issues. But by the time you get to the scene where the Avengers -- and some surprising reinforcements -- dig their heels in for a last stand against Ultron's minions, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, and it's all in slow motion...........oh man, fan boy moment! It's hard not to go along for the ride. It isn't perfect, and I liked the first Avengers more, but this is about as entertaining as anything you could ask for. Quite the daunting task taken on by Whedon and his script, but I'll call it booming, flawed gem of a success. Now onto other Marvel films....and there will be tons! The ending especially sets things up nicely for the next Captain America movie, set for release in 2016. Bring it on!

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Does the name Matthew Vaughn ring a bell? Well, it's not necessarily a household name...yet. A director, producer and writer extraordinaire, Vaughn has been behind such movies as Layer Cake, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, The Debt, and even the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot. His most recent flick, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service, is pulling in the dough. Who knows? It might not be too long before Vaughn is definitely a household name.

Part of a secret spy organization working in England with a history dating back to the early 20th century, the Kingsmen, gentleman spy Harry Hart (Colin Firth), codename: Galahad, is on a mission in the Middle East, when a fellow young agent is killed saving his life. Back in England, Harry meets the agent's young son and some 17 years later saves him from a nasty encounter with the police. Why the encounter so many years later? Harry recruits young Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin (Taron Egerton) to become the newest agent, the newest Kingsman. Having grown up on the streets, Eggsy is intelligent, tough and quick-thinking, but he hasn't always lived up to his potential. Now, Harry needs him to live up to it if he hopes to beat the other candidates. Trouble is on the horizon in the form of Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), an internet billionaire with a horrific plan to alter Earth's future. The key to it all, that could be feisty, stubborn Eggsy.

Let's give Mr. Vaughn credit where it's due. This is a guy who knows what kind of movie he wants to make, sets out to do it, and screw anyone who gets in his way. No, I'm not saying he's some sort of movie studio bully. It's just that Vaughn makes movies unlike just about any other movie currently in theaters. Helter-skelter, schizophrenic, stylish, smart and equal parts stupid, this is just a ridiculously fun and entertaining movie. It most assuredly is NOT for everyone. The violence is cartoonishly over the top and stylized, the humor a little low-brow at times, but my goodness, what a fun movie.

The British spy movie has a long and rich history, starting obviously with the James Bond/007 franchise. It's the rare movie that is able to put a new spin on the spy genre, but 'Kingsman' does it with violent glee and fun. This is a smart movie, poking fun at the genre without venturing into spoof territory (thankfully). The script from Vaughn and Jane Goldman is self-conscious, some great dialogue scenes between Firth's Harry and Jackson's Valentine discussing the backgrounds of the gentleman spy and the maniacal villain trying to take over the world. Fans of the genre will get a kick out those moments, the quieter, smarter and lower key moments that balance out the general craziness of the rest of the movie.

Reviews were generally pretty mixed about star Taron Egerton, but I came away impressed with the young British actor. He definitely holds his own in the dramatic scenes with quite the cast surrounding him of dramatic star power. When it comes to the action scenes, Egerton shows off his physical prowess, blending in seamlessly. It doesn't hurt that he's got that cocky smirk ready with a snap to disarm a scene with ease. How about some star power though? Constantly wearing the layered look and showing off a flat-brim hat and rocking a lisp, Samuel L. Jackson is clearly having a ball as Valentine, the villain with a plan to save the world by some horrifying means. This isn't a nutso villain. His plan is certainly...interesting, but he's also squeamish around blood, a bit of a goof and loves a good McDonald's cheeseburger. Also look for Sofia Boutella as Gazelle, Valentine's foot-less hench-woman who uses bladed prosthetic legs as deadly weapons. 

The casting of three British actors was what originally caught my eye and kept me interested as a release date drew closer. Enter Colin Firth, Michael Caine and Mark Strong. One of the most talented actors currently working in film and the prototypical British gentleman (on screen at least, he may be a wild man in his personal life), Firth absolutely nails the movie. Let's call it Liam Neeson Mode, a highly respected actor taking on a more fun role. He plays the straight man to all the shenanigans, but man, is he having fun. The same for Strong as Merlin, a fellow Kinsgman and a drill sergeant of sorts, barking out orders with a bit of a Scottish brogue as his potential agents navigate training. Oh, and that Michael Caine guy. Have you heard of him? It's a smaller part, but an essential one. How can you go wrong with that trio? I submit that you CANNOT. Also look for Mark Hamill and Jack Davenport in supporting parts.

The history of the Kingsman would be an interesting prequel in itself, a group of agents and spies with code names from the legend of King Arthur, all criss-crossing the world to stop all sorts of diabolical plots. A highly recommended movie with some ridiculously stylized violence, some great one-liners, style in general to burn, and a 'Screw you' type of attitude. It's the type of movie that doesn't care if you like it. It's just interested in being a ton of fun.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014): ***/****

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

So those Avengers movies...they seem to be kinda popular judging by the money they're raking in at the box office. I thought The Avengers was great. I loved the first Iron Man but thought the movies progressively went downhill with the sequels. As for the two Thor movies, I thought Thor was a great lead character, but the movies itself were disappointing. So what's that leave? That's right, my personal favorite, Steve Rogers himself. He returns by his better known name in 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

With the epic battle in New York in the rear view mirror, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) himself, is working for SHIELD. He takes on countless missions around the world, anything and everything that threatens national and international security, often with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) working with him. Captain America and the Black Widow pull off one dangerous mission in the Indian Ocean, but it has dangerous repercussions. It actually exposes a breach within Shield and now Captain America is made to look like a traitor to everything he has defended for all these years. With all of SHIELD's resources on his trail, he's now on his own as he tries to stop a diabolical plan that could kill millions while also proving his innocence. His biggest obstacle? A mysterious, seemingly in destructible assassin dubbed the Winter Soldier.

A plot description for an Avengers movie is pretty unnecessary. Without hearing a word about the story, you either know you will or won't be seeing this flick. From directors Anthony and Joe Russo, 'Soldier' is another gem, another worthy addition to the Avengers franchise. Apparently I'm not the only one who thought so as the most recent Captain America earned over $700 million internationally at the box office. All the ingredients are there -- great cast, epic action, well-written script, some well-placed humor -- but there's a reason the Captain movies are my favorite. They're big, giant blockbusters, but they're more than that. These are genuinely smart movies. I don't know if I can say the same for either Iron Man or Thor entries.

It all starts with Chris Evans reprising his role as Captain America. He's long been one of my favorite actors, and this is obviously his biggest and most recognizable role. I love how they've developed the Steve Rogers character. It's been a couple years since the Avengers, and Steve/Captain is still adjusting to the 21st Century after six-plus decades being frozen in a glacier. His chemistry with Johansson's Black Widow/Natasha is evident in all their scenes together, and it's definitely cool to see individuals among the Avengers get some time to themselves, not just as part of the group. Also cool? Like you needed to know, but Samuel L. Jackson is back as Nick Fury, SHIELD's tough, efficient leader. Throw these three epically cool characters together, and you've got quite a lot of heroes to lead the way.

Also returning with varying amounts of screentime are Cobie Smulders as SHIELD agent Hill, Toby Jones, and Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Steve's possible love interest from the 1940s, now a grandma struggling with health issues. 

How about some fresh blood too?!? When I saw that Robert Redford was part of the cast, I almost lost my mind. Robert REDFORD?!? Here he plays Alexander Pierce, a powerful senator backing the defensive efforts of SHIELD who has a long history working with Fury. It's a cool part, one that adds another dimension to the already enjoyable story. Anthony Mackie is a welcome addition to as Sam Wilson, a para-rescue vet who forms a quick friendship with Steve when things hit the fan. Frank Grillo and Callan Mulvey play members of a strike force working with SHIELD while Emily VanCamp plays Steve's neighbor holding a key secret. Some cool parts to add to an already very talented cast.

So go figure, but this Captain America movie has some pretty cool action sequences. Crazy, right? I don't want to give away too much because the various twists and turns should come as a surprise and not be spoiled in a review. The action though is pretty solid, from a smaller scale scene early on where Captain, Widow and a Strike force team take out a group of commandos holding hostages to chases sprinkled throughout the story. I thought the coolest was Jackson's Fury trying to evade an ambush on the streets of Washington D.C., just an effortlessly smooth extended sequence that some cool tricks up its sleeve. And the finale? Yeah, pretty nuts, a gigantic battle in scale and size in the skies in and around Washington. The finale in The Avengers set the bar pretty high in that department, and 'Soldier' does its best to reach those heights.

Just a good movie with a lot to recommend. This is a blockbuster -- $700 million!!! -- that's got a brain. Even the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) isn't an out-and-out villain, but a tortured baddie forced into something he had no control over. There's a pretty major twist near the halfway point that I didn't love, but it does work when all things are considered, both for this movie and the Captain America and Avengers franchise going forward. Highly recommended, an easy flick to sit back, watch and appreciate.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Django Unchained

Not everyone is a fan of director Quentin Tarantino. I understand that. He tends to rub people the wrong way at times in his verbosity and lack of filter. Within each of his movies, there are even moments I want to slap him, tell him to tone things down. But the best part? When he gets something right, he does it so ridiculously well it makes you appreciate how good a feature film can be. Enter 2012's Django Unchained.

Being transported following a slave auction in 1858 Texas, slave Django (Jamie Foxx) is rescued by a dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). The good doctor has a proposal; Django knows what the Brittle brothers, three notorious outlaws, look like while Schultz cannot identify them. If Django travels with him and identifies him, Schultz will give him his freedom. Django agrees but with a caveat, he wants Schultz's help getting his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), also sold at an auction, back. The duo forms an unlikely partnership, the bounty hunter teaching the slave the ways of the business. The Brittle brothers await somewhere at a southern plantation, but Django and Schultz also find out that Broomhilda was purchased by Monsieur Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), owner of one of the biggest plantations in the South. What awaits the bounty hunter dentist and his slave apprentice?

Above all else, Quentin Tarantino (directing and writing the script here) loves movies. He truly loves them. His movies always reflect that. He grew up watching all sorts of movies -- spaghetti westerns, blaxploitation flicks, countless others -- and his movies typically work as a quasi-tribute to those movies he loves. When things are going well, it is going really well. As a viewer, I watch certain scenes and just inherently know 'This is what movies should be.' His movies are done on an epic scope, blending an incredible visual with drama and humor, performances that can shock and surprise whether they be workmanlike or highly memorable, a style in story and camerawork that sets it apart from the rest. Because Tarantino can get far too indulgent at times, it's easy to look past his freakish talent, but it's there just the same. If only there was a way to calm him down....just a little.

For a director with less than 10 feature films to his name, Tarantino has created an impressive, eclectic variety of movies. Not surprisingly, 'Django' defies any specific description. Is it a western? Yeah, sort of, but that's limiting. It takes place almost entirely in the deep South in 1858, long before our concept of the wild west ever began. This is a movie that in its rather verbose 165 minutes covers a whole lot of ground. It is at times incredibly difficult to watch, especially considering its rather blunt portrayal of slavery and violence. Whippings, dog attacks, the ever-present and constant use of the 'N-word,' it's all there, including a brutal fighting style called Mandingo, slaves fighting to the death with their bare hands for the enjoyment and entertainment of their masters. But ultimately, a movie that defies description is not a bad thing, not by a long shot. While it refers and pays tribute to countless other movies, it is most definitely its own movie.

The best thing going for 'Django' is the casting of Foxx and Waltz and the relationship that develops between the two men. The casting of the Django character was tricky, attracting names from Will Smith to Tyrese Gibson to Terrence Howard, but Foxx is a great choice. His character is likable and sympathetic while also giving a hard edge that shows how driven he is. Playing a part not dissimilar to his part in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, Waltz is again a scene-stealer. Foxx is the anti-hero, Waltz the showier part as Dr. King Schultz. Tarantino's script does a fine job developing both men, especially Dr. Schultz as the movie delves deeper and deeper into their mission. It is the unlikeliest of pairings, but it is beyond perfect. Schultz takes him along purely for financial reasons (the badder the man, the bigger the bounty) but ends up looking to Django as an equal he insists on sticking with. I loved the two performances and hope both actors are rewarded with some award nominations in the coming weeks.

Actors and actresses want to work with Tarantino, and the biggest surprise in casting was Leonard DiCaprio as Southern plantation owner Calvin Candie. It is a gem of a performance. Like Waltz, it is big and showy and aggressive, but it never feels forced. DiCaprio takes the chance to work with a Tarantino script and runs with it. Seeing him in such an obvious but racially-charged role as a bad guy isn't a bad thing either. The real villain though? In my estimation, Samuel L. Jackson in a scene-stealing part as Stephen, Candie's head slave who looks out for himself, screw black, white and any other skin color. Washington too does a fine job in a not so great part as Broomhilda, the damsel in distress waiting for her true love to rescue her.

That should be enough for any movie, but it is a Tarantino movie so....yeah, it isn't enough. In varying roles look for Walt Goggins, Dennis Christopher, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill, James Remar, James Russo, Bruce Dern, Russ Tamblyn, Amber Tamblyn, Don Stroud, Michael Parks, Tom Savini, and M.C. Gainey. The coolest appearance goes to the original Django himself, Franco Nero, appearing in a quick scene with Foxx that any fan of the 1966 spaghetti western should appreciate. They have a quick exchange and share a knowing look in a very cool scene.  

Another fixture in a Tarantino movie is the musical score, and he doesn't disappoint here. The actual Django theme from 1966 (Listen HERE) plays over the opening credits with composer Luis Bacalov's scores from several other movies used throughout the story. Other samples include Ennio Morricone's scores from Two Mules for Sister Sara, Violent City, Hornets' Nest, Hellbenders and others mixed in with Bacalov scores, and several rap songs (out of place to me). For the most part, the soundtrack fits well without being as aggressively blaring as certain Tarantino soundtracks.

How about another Tarantino fixture? Yep, it took me awhile, but here we are talking about on-screen violence, a staple in Tarantino films. For the most part, the director uses violence to shock and surprise, disgust and enthrall at the same time. It's quick and shocking and graphic. That's fine, the violence even played for some incredibly dark humor at times. For me though, even Tarantino goes too far in a late shootout that pushes the bounds I have for violence. Graphic and gratuitous is one thing, but it's such a ridiculously over the top sequence -- slow motion galore, blood squibs and clouds of bloody mist on steroids -- that it becomes disgusting. The violence is at its best in quick bursts, but when it lingers, it starts to become too much.

For a movie I liked a lot (maybe even loved, give me a couple days to think about it), it may sound like I'm too negative. 'Django' certainly has some negatives. It has some pacing problems just past the halfway point of the movie that it struggles to overcome. The first 110 minutes or so are nearly perfect while the second half of the story is still impressive but just not on the same level. The ending -- not surprisingly -- does not disappoint. It is a funny, impressive, moving, incredibly dark, smart, vicious, honest and highly entertaining movie. I could do whole reviews about single scenes, performances and countless other little things from this movie. It has flaws (don't be confused there), but when it works, I loved this movie, even enough to give it a four-star rating. Say what you want about Quentin Tarantino, but the man knows how to make a film that can bring together and/or divide an audience like nobody's business. Definitely check this one out.

Django Unchained (2012): ****/**** 

The Avengers

Since 2008's Iron Man, the Marvel Comics universe has been introduced to a worldwide audience via a series of films featuring an infamous list of heroes. With each passing movie, the audience would see little snippets of something bigger being hinted at, something else coming along down the road. We saw quick scenes of characters, usually post-credits, and the rumors drifted. Would all these superhero characters team up as they did in the Marvel comics, forming The Avengers (<---the comic)? You bet, and that's where 2012's The Avengers rides into town to open the summer blockbusters.

For those not familiar with the Avengers' lineup, here goes, a refresher course in badass superheroes. The plot synopsis is next, but I wanted to start with a listing of these characters. The biggest and baddest? Well, I guess that's a personal choice, but I'm starting with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Tony Stark in real life, a rich, eccentric playboy philanthropist. Joining him are Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero come back to fight in 2012, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), an other-worldly Norse god, and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), scientist Bruce Banner post-gamma ray accident. Rounding out the group are two assassins and special agents, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a brutally efficient expert in hand-to-hand combat, and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a pilot and marksman with bow and arrow. Good enough? That's just the start.

Director of espionage and intelligence agency S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) arrives at a remote secure facility in the desert as a time portal opens up and brings an unwelcome visitor. It is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), half-brother of Norse god, Thor, and he intends to wreak havoc on Earth. Loki steals the all-powerful Tesseract -- a pure, clean and unmeasurable source of energy -- and intends to use it to take over the planet. With nowhere to turn and no mortal, normal solution, Fury turns to the only individuals he can in a plan dubbed the Avengers Initiative, a collection of "freaks" all with unique, bizarre powers. With these different personalities and talents, can the group put their differences aside long enough to save the planet?

This is a summer blockbuster, definition of basically, director Joss Whedon's film raking in over $200 million its opening weekend alone, and that's just the United States. It is a big, big movie, but a good big movie, and that means everything. It clocks in at 143 minutes total and even without the most pointed of stories manages to be entertaining from start to finish. 'Avengers' is in no rush to get anywhere. It is a great popcorn movie. The action is great to watch, shot on a huge scale and using CGI but never that ridiculous-looking 'Oh, look, it's CGI' type reaction. Genuinely funny with a handful of legitimate laughs, full of action and great characters, this will not disappoint fans of the Iron Man movies, Hulk, or Thor. The Avengers very much so lives up to its admittedly rather high expectations.

A good script is one thing, and having the talent to execute it another thing entirely. The cast here are movie stars who can act, not just movie stars. The obvious star is Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man/Tony Stark, bringing this character to life perfectly the same way he did in Iron Man 1 and 2. Amidst a sea of solid actors, he manages to stand out, delivering countless smarmy, smart-ass one-liners. I'm also a fan of Evans too, and he's in close second as Captain America in terms of memorable superheroes. None of that is to say the rest are disappointing. Ruffalo and Hemsworth are excellent in smaller parts, pieces of an ensemble. Johansson seems a little out of place, but watching her in a leather catsuit puts any of those questions to bed. Renner too doesn't have a ton to do, but as one of the rising stars in Hollywood, it's one more solid, worthwhile part.

Not enough? Along with the always reliable, always worth watching Samuel L. Jackson, Hiddleston is a great maniacal villain you love to hate, Clark Gregg runs with his chance at more screentime as SHIELD agent Coulson and never looks back, Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) plays another SHIELD agent, Stellan Skarsgard is the brilliant scientist duped into working for Loki, Harry Dean Stanton as a security guard who meets post-rage Hulk, and Powers Boothe has a quick part as a member of the World Security Council. Oh, can't forget about Gwyneth Paltrow's quick appearance as Pepper Potts, Tony's girlfriend. Not too bad of a cast, huh?

The action is impressive -- more on that later -- but what I liked most was the team aspect of the Avengers. Who's the leader? How will they work together? Can they? The script has countless scenes that throw them together in groups of two and three, five and six, and just lets them go. Yes, they're all different people, but they are in fact fighting together. Jackson's Fury has a great scene late when he has to convince the remaining Avengers to band together, the movie on the whole taking a turn for the dark side as push comes to shove. Their interactions -- both dramatic and humorous -- are a pleasure to watch. Then there's that little kid, primal thing that kicks in. A fight among Iron Man, Thor and Capt. America? Oh, hell yes! A brutal, knock-down fight between Thor and Hulk? Sign me up. The specialist, expert team aspect sounds obvious that it would work (and it does) but these characters clicking into place makes the movie particularly memorable.

Oh, by the way, there's crazy amounts of amazing action. I mentioned earlier watching CGI action gets old quickly, but that's not the case here. The CGI for one, looks real. Crazy thought, isn't it? The movie never goes long without a fight/action sequence, but the best is saved for last, Loki's minions unleashed through a universe portal on New York City, and all that stands in front of them is the Avengers. It goes on for most of 45 minutes but the time flies by. The whole movie does in that sense. Highly entertaining, funny and dramatic, memorable action, and a lineup sheet of some of the coolest superheroes and characters around. Go see this.

The Avengers <---trailer (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Thor

One of many movies that I'm looking forward to in 2012, The Avengers will arrive in theaters on May 4. I've seen the other unofficial prequels that have all led to this movie including Iron Man (loved it), Iron Man 2 (eh), Captain America (loved it), and the Hulk movies (okay, but nothing more). Who's left? That would be 2011's Thor, a movie I really had little interest in seeing, but for the sake of The Avengers, I wanted at least to be up to date on everything. Yeah, that was a bad choice.

In the realm of Asgard, a king named Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has stopped the Frost Giants from destroying the remaining eight realms of the universe. Odin is quickly aging though and is ready to name his son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), his heir and successor to the crown. Thor though is too arrogant, too cocky, and finds himself banished to Earth when he pushes his father too far, all his power and strength -- including his hammer -- is taken from him. He's found in the desert by Jane (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist exploring sightings in the sky. With no powers, Thor doesn't know what to do as he explores this foreign world. Back home in Asgard, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is up to no good though, and Thor must find a way to stop him.

I think it took me about five minutes to decide I didn't like this film, and unfortunately things didn't improve over the next 110. From the previous Marvel superhero movies, I expected a certain quality even when the movie itself isn't that great. Director Kenneth Branagh seems lost here. There is absolutely no payoff here at all. None. Things keep building and building....well, sort of. Things happen in the desert, then Asgard, then other realms, then a lackluster fight at the end. People are shot back and forth through the realms, people fight. I don't see the point of the movie other than introducing the Thor character. It's dull, the attempts at humor fall far short of actual laughs, and a good cast is wasted...a really good cast.

What was my first sign of trouble? The sweeping panoramic reveal of Asgard, a Norse-like realm straight out of Viking mythology, reeked of Lord of the Rings. The overabundance of CGI bored me to death. I maintain that the best of computer-generated imagery is barely noticeable. It just flows with the movie. The scenes that call attention to themselves are pretty clear we're watching something a computer created. But mostly, it's the ridiculous tone. An acting legend he may be, but Hopkins just looks uncomfortable here. Hiddleston as Loki is one of the weakest, most boring villains around. And the introduction of the Frost Giants in the beginning? I realize this is all a fictional mythology, but that's the best that Marvel came up with? Big monsters that freeze things? When they're fighting Thor or his allies in battle, why don't they just freeze them off the bat instead of engaging in hand-to-hand combat? Wow, that's way too much analysis for a movie this dumb.

Now not that an IMDB rating means a lot (is The Shawshank Redemption really the greatest movie ever? I think not.), but Thor is rocking a 7.0 average at the time of this review. The only real bright spot I come up with is Hemsworth as Thor. He's one of the few actors here who looks comfortable in his role. He commits to the part for lack of a better description. Thor, the god of thunder, arriving on Earth with no powers but all his Norse mannerisms and stilted, boisterous speech patterns do provide some laughs. He orders a 2nd cup of coffee, slamming the empty mug down because that's what he's always done. More importantly though, Hemsworth is quite the physical presence. This dude is ripped, and he dominates the fight scenes he's in. Now if he joins The Avengers, I don't see why anyone else is needed -- especially if he's got his Hammer -- but more over-thinking on my part. Silly me. Anyways, Hemsworth is the best thing going here.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well. No doubt that Portman is an above average actress, and it's great to see her in a mainstream blockbuster, but this is not a good part for her. She floats along, tries to act pissed and falls hard for Thor because something's got to happen in this movie. Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Denning play Erik and Darcy, Jane's assistants in the field who get mixed up in the whole Thor arrival. Denning at least gives it a go with her cynical humor, Skarsgard just looks bored. Thor's Asgard crew of warriors -- potentially very cool, in execution not developed and cliched -- include Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, Josh Dallas, and Jaimie Alexander. Making an out of left field appearance, Rene Russo stands around for two or three scenes as Frigga, Thor's mother. Another bright spot in the cool character/actor department is Idris Elba as Heimdall, the Asgard gatekeeper to the portals that reach the other realms of the universe.

Because I'm struggling to put into words why I disliked this movie, let's talk connection with The Avengers. Clark Gregg is back as Agent Coulson, on-site and much-maligned field agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. who must investigate Thor's arrival, as well as his Hammer. Also look quickly for Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another Avenger introduced for the first time here. And if the other Marvel movies have taught us anything, watch through the credits as Samuel L. Jackson makes his requisite appearance in a short scene as Nick Fury. I didn't care for Thor -- the movie, not the character -- much at all, but I'm still psyched for the Avengers movie in May.

I'm trying to put my finger on this one, and I'm drawing a complete blank. I'm not sure what Brannagh was going for at all as a director. The story is aimless, drifting along with no real purpose or set goal. It bounces around far too much, and then when its deemed we've had enough, the credits roll. Hemsworth as Thor is trying though, and he does a fine job with the character, but there's not much else to recommend.   

Thor <---trailer (2011): */****

Jackie Brown

One of the breakout stars of 1970s movies, Pam Grier shot to fame in blaxploitation movies like Coffy and Foxy Brown. She was tough, sassy and sexy, and not surprisingly became a fan favorite. Her best performance though is an easy one to peg, Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown. 

After being busted years before for transporting drugs, stewardess Jackie Brown (Grier) again finds herself in trouble with the authorities. Working for a low-level airline, Jackie is transporting large shipments of cash for an arms dealer, Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), stationed out of Los Angeles. Not looking to do jail time and avoid probation at all costs, Jackie has to figure out what to do. The authorities (including ATF agent Michael Keaton) are pressing her, but with some help from a friendly bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Jackie comes up with a complicated if hopefully successful plan to get out clean....and with a boatload of money too.

As I've mentioned before, Tarantino as a director can be a tad bit polarizing among fans. Watching his movies, I've come to be a huge fan, enjoying some movies and loving others. It's a given going in. You can expect a hip soundtrack, style in general to burn, some characters and acting you might not expect, lots, lots of dialogue and some startling violence. For Tarantino haters, this might be a good intro. At 154 minutes, it is a little long in the tooth. The dialogue is a little self-indulgent and too much, but because of the immense talents involved you go along with it. The violence is probably at an all-time low for Quentin with a story focusing more on the characters, the betrayals and the double crosses. So if you despise Tarantino, give this one a try.

More of a sex symbol in the 1970s than an actress, Grier shows that without a doubt, no question about it, she can act and do it well. Part of it is the script (based off an Elmore Leonard novel), but this is a great character. Grier puts her own spin on it. Jackie is backed into a corner with nothing left to lose at this point. She's looking at minimum at probation, more likely serving jail time. With no ace up her sleeve, she plays everyone around her -- except for one person -- to her own benefit. The catch? We're rooting for her. She's likable (okay, I thought so). We want her to succeed. Oh, and just an FYI, at 48 years old....still sexy.  Just saying.

What I don't understand with Tarantino haters is that whatever you dislike about him personally or his style as a director, he consistently gets original, unique, and entertaining performances from his cast. You know what's a good sign of a deep cast? Read the plot synopsis, and it doesn't even mention Robert De Niro. Not bad when a movie uses De Niro as a supporting part, involved but not essential to the story. He plays Louis Gara, an ex-con working with Jackson's Ordell, underplaying his part to the point you question if he's acting. Bridget Fonda plays Melanie, one of Ordell's girlfriends, spending most of her screentime in a bikini and stoned out of her mind. Keaton plays Keaton, a kinda finicky, eccentric ATF agent while Chris Tucker has a small part as  Beaumont, one of Ordell's "associates."

Right up there with Grier though, I thought the best performance was from Robert Forster as Max Cherry, a bail bondsman with 20 years of experience and some 15,000 bonds written. When he meets Grier's Jackie, he's instantly drawn to her and ends up getting involved in her scheme like he never planned. I don't know what it was about the performance, but I liked it. Like most of the acting here, it's underplayed and subtle. Max has a bright spot in his life when Jackie enters. His voice mail message checking in with her says it all, a rambling stream of thought providing every single one of his contact numbers. It's a human part amidst all the quick, fast-paced dialogue, just one aging guy looking for something in his life. Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson is intimidating and an all-around great bad guy.

Add another win for Tarantino with this one. Similar in some ways to his other films, it is also very different. However you feel about him though, it is well-written and the performances keep you interested from beginning to end. Not a bad follow-up to Pulp Fiction at all.

Jackie Brown <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Out of Sight

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley.  They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

Captain America: The First Avenger

For several years now, there was talk of an Avengers movie, a team of superheroes united to help defend the world. I've seen most of the movies by now with a couple exceptions, but when I first saw the trailers for Captain America: The First Avenger -- released to huge business this past weekend -- I was especially psyched for the release. It seemed like one of those rare movies where everything came together to work perfectly; story, action, cast, anything and everything. In a rare departure though from a lot of the crap that hits theaters, this one actually lives up to expectations and then some.

What immediately caught my eye with the trailers released over the last few months was the World War II setting. Now I read comic books growing up, but never religiously, picking them up here and there.  I knew who Captain America was, knew his basic storyline, but in general I was pretty vague about him. As a relative non-fan, I can say safely that it doesn't matter how much/little you know about the character. Just go and enjoy it. 'First Avenger' plays like a good old-fashioned action movie, a throwback to movies of past where the good guys were really good and the bad guys really bad. Imagine the Indiana Jones movies (okay, Raiders and Crusade) but with a superhero. Just a fun, highly entertaining movie all around.

Weighing just 90 pounds and always under attack by constant ailments and diseases, Brooklyn youngster Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) just can't get into the army as he meets constant rejection wherever he tries to enlist while World War II rages all over Europe and the Pacific. His persistence catches the eye of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who likes what he sees out of the young man, enlisting him in his own special outfit headed by army Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones). Undergoing a new scientific medical treatment created by Erskine, Steve is transformed into a super soldier, earning the name Captain America as he encourages Americans to support the war effort by buying war bonds. The Army wants to unleash him against the Axis, but someone is gunning for him. A splinter group of Adolf Hitler's science team/program, a fanatical officer, Col. Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), has created their own brand of super weapons with his organization Hydra, and their intention isn't just taking out the Allies, but the whole world...unless Captain America can stop them.

One of the biggest concerns reviewers/critics/fans had as the movie was being made was the casting as Chris Evans as Captain America. I've long been a fan of his and think he's one of the real rising stars in Hollywood so I can't say I was too worried. I think any worries people had with Evans being cast were unfounded. He is more than capable of carrying an action movie like this one. Seeing so many dark, cynical superhero movies, it is also rather refreshing to see a character like Steve Rogers, a physically weak but incredibly strong-willed, stubborn individual who just wants to do what's right and join the war effort. Early scenes with Evans' head digitally placed on a much smaller stand-in's body are flawless (even creepy), only to have Steve transform into a ripped, jacked up super soldier. I look forward to seeing Evans continue with the character in next summers Avengers movie, especially with this strong debut now under his belt.

A continuing trend in this recent wave of superhero movies are these ridiculously loaded supporting casts.  We're not talking action stars who can't act a lick either, we're talking reputable, hardcore, serious actors. Tommy Lee Jones takes a role he could do in his sleep and nails it, throwing one-liners left and right. Tucci is a scene-stealer in his too short appearance, a German doctor who left the Nazis behind to work with the Americans. Dominic Cooper plays Howard Stark, engineer/inventor extraordinaire and Tony Stark's father (Iron Man for those newbies around), the very beautiful Hayley Atwell is Agent Peggy Carter, a liaison and PG-13 love interest for Steve, Toby Jones is Dr. Zola, Schmidt's chemist and science specialist, and Weaving makes the most of his underused part as Colonel Schmidt, the fanatical German officer who eventually becomes Red Skull. Some parts are obviously bigger and better than others, but not a one among them disappoints.

Like I needed another reason to like this movie, but I got it as the story developed, Captain American becoming a bona-fide war hero. He liberates some 400 prisoners of war from a Schmidt camp, six of them becoming his expert, international fighting team. A team of specialists?!? Men on a mission! America's group includes his best friend growing up from Brooklyn, Freddy Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Dum Dum Duggan (Neal McDonough), the Irishman who favors a heavy shotgun, Gabe Jones (Derek Luke), a commando, Jim Morita (Kenneth Choi), a Japanese-American soldier, James Montgomery Falworth (JJ Feild), the proper Englishman, and Jacques Dernier (Bruno Ricci), the Frenchman. For the most part, they're given no development other than a quick introduction before being unleashed on the Nazis in a very cool action-heavy montage. Lack of a better description aside, I'll just say they're very cool.

With action movies more than maybe any other genre, I don't always need a lot of things to happen. I'll look past a movie's flaws as long as I'm entertained. There are good movies, and there are good action movies. Captain America? It's just a good movie with some action. Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Phillips commended the movie for allowing characters to have actual scenes of dialogue, and he's got a point. This is a well-written script that allows all the talent involved to have some fun with the superhero in the WWII setting. A World War II movie with a superhero might seem out of place or even cheesy, but no worries here. Sit back and enjoy this one, a throwback to a different time when movies just wanted to entertain.

Characters, setting, and story? Triple check. Bring on the action! Finding that appropriate mix of action and story, director Joe Johnston never goes overboard. His action sequences are impressive and fun to watch without being mind-numbingly repetitive. He gets into the scenes and does what needs to be done, content with putting together a solid scene as opposed to going overboard. Steve's first scene post-transofrmation is a great chase scene, a pleasure to watch as Steve realizes what he's now capable of. Steve/Captain America taking on a Hydra base with Schmidt's special soldiers to free hundreds of POWs while an assault on a train snaking through the mountains works in its quickness and effectiveness.  The finale is nothing special, just entertaining and exciting like the rest of the flick.

I realize as I write this I'm not exactly doing a great job selling the movie. There is nothing particularly groundbreaking or new about this most recent superhero movie. It...is...just....good.  Is that so bad?  I loved the cast and all the characters brought to life, the story is familiar but always interesting, and the action comes in somewhat smaller doses but never disappoints. The ending is surprising too (with Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury), mostly because it doesn't go for an easy, happy ending. A classic on the whole? Maybe not, but a damn entertaining movie. And stick around through the credits for a teaser trailer for next summer's Avengers movie. Well worth the wait.

Captain America: The First Avenger <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Pulp Fiction

When I reviewed Inglorious Basterds over a year ago, I said that there isn't as divisive a director as Quentin Tarantino currently working in Hollywood.  I stand by that statement still.  Is he immensely talented, an eccentric movie lover? Or is he a hack, taking here and there from previously successful movies and making them his own?  Is it a bad thing that it seems he falls somewhere in between?  I think he's both. Of course, if you're not a fan of his, it's going to take more than that to appreciate the man's films.  To each his own.  Like anything with movies, it comes down to personal preference.

What's impressive about Tarantino and the love-hate relationship moviegoers have with him is that the man just doesn't have a lot of films to his name.  He picks projects that appeal to him, not just taking anything that comes down the road.  Of the 15 directorial claims IMDB makes, only eight are feature length projects.  In their own right, each can be called in a classic (okay, a minor classic in some cases), and fans have their own individual favorites.  For many, it's an easy decision, and the movie that always seems to come up is 1994's Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's first movie after the surprising success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs.

I don't put much stock in the IMDB's fan rating system which allows fan voting to show how good/bad a movie is.  Pulp Fiction currently sits at No. 5 all-time.  I don't think it's close to being one of the top five greatest movies of all-time, but then again, IMDB voters have The Shawshank Redemption as No. 1 so take that for what's it worth.  This is a good intro to Tarantino for fans not familiar with him.  Long scenes of uninterrupted dialogue broken up by brief but extreme moments of graphic violence, style to spare, and a cast that any movie fan should be able to appreciate.  Here goes an attempt to give some sort of plot synopsis, however muddled it may be. Interweaving storylines, characters in and out of the story, and a non-linear plot certainly keep you on your toes.

Two low-level enforcer/hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), have been dispatched on a mission from their boss, Marsellus Graham (Ving Rhames). Someone owes him money, and Vincent and Jules intend to get it back.  Vincent's also been assigned an unusual task, go on a date with Marsellus' wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) while the boss is out of town. Also going on, Marsellus has arranged for aging boxer, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), to throw a fight for big money, but Butch has other plans that only he knows about.  On top of that, two bottom-tier thieves (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are planning their next job, and everyone is involved whether they know it or not.

Where to start, where to start? Tarantino uses his usual chapters storytelling device, breaking up the 153-minute movie into smaller segments that aren't told in chronological order. For example, we see someone get killed in one chapter, but they're alive in the next.  Gimmicky, yes, but when handled right, it's a home run, and Tarantino brings it full circle, ending the movie exactly where it started. The soundtrack is full of classic rock songs, and really runs the gamut across genres.  Style-wise, Tarantino tells a story with his camera, blending long unedited takes with quick in your face editing at other times.  Question if you will what the director is showing, but just in terms of pure movie-making skill, it's hard to beat this guy.

By 1994, John Travolta's career was all but mainlining when he accepted this part to play hitman Vincent Vega.  It was the part that put him back in the limelight and earned him an Oscar nomination in the process.  For me personally, Travolta (and his interactions with Jackson) are what makes this movie special.  It's the little things that make it work.  I couldn't place Vince's accent if I tried, but it adds something to the character.  He's a little off, maybe a little crazy, but at the same time perfectly sane.  His dance scene with Uma Thurman (watch it HERE) is about as iconic, as memorable as anything to hit theaters in the last 20 years and is so sublimely perfect it's not even worth trying to explain. I loved this character and wish there was more of him.

With a story that bounces around as much as Pulp Fiction does, some characters/storylines get more in-depth than others.  On top of all those names mentioned above, there's also parts for Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi as a smarmy waiter, Tarantino stepping in front of the camera for a quick appearance, and two perfect parts for Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel. Walken is on-screen for no more than two minutes but delivers one of the most movingly effective and equally funny monologues I've ever seen (watch it HERE).  Keitel nails his part as 'the Wolf,' a cleaner who fixes other people's messes.  Check out Keitel's entrance HERE. These are two small parts that Tarantino clearly loved writing, stylish and unnecessary but nonetheless giving a movie those little touches that can bring it up a notch.

As much as I loved certain parts of the movie, others just fell flat.  The Bruce Willis boxer subplot didn't work as well for me as the rest of the movie -- with the exception of the Walken scene -- and I found myself fast-forwarding through it.  Tarantino can be too self-indulgent at times, and the dialogue goes on too long at times.  That said, the positives make the negatives a minor problem.  Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Walken, Keitel, Thurman, deliver amazingly memorable performances.  For all the dialogue that never stops, there's monologues (like Jackson's in the finale SPOILERS, HERE) that make you appreciate what good writing really is.  Flawed as a movie overall, yes, but one of the best flawed movies I've seen in awhile.

Pulp Fiction <---trailer (1994): *** 1/2 /****   

Iron Man 2

The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Temple of Doom, all sequels and 2nd in a trilogy that's better than the original.  Okay, not Temple of Doom, but the others still count. Is that the expectation though or the exceptions to the rule? In the age of milking a franchise cash cow for everything it's worth, the biggest blockbusters of the last 10-15 years have been sequels, often of superhero movies.  One that surprised several years back with its popularity and success at the box office was Iron Man, but unfortunately 2010's Iron Man 2 just can't live up to the raised expectations.

When it comes to superhero movies, I fall somewhere in between.  Yes, I like them, but I didn't grow up reading comic books by the hundreds, and I especially don't know the superhero universes where everything has already been set in stone so that a franchise must follow it to the letter.  The problem with any successful franchise though is what to do after the first big success.  You can't just duplicate the first movie. You have to do everything bigger and better.  Director and supporting player Jon Favreau follows that idea by throwing everything into a script that never decides what to focus on and suffers because of it.  Too much going on, too many characters, lack of any development with those characters, and surprisingly enough for a summer blockbuster, not enough action.

Six months since revealing that he is in fact Iron Man, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has basically wiped out any sort of worldwide conflict. In doing so though he has the U.S. government and the Department of Defense on his tail to give up the Iron Man so that it can be a controlled commodity instead of one man's all-powerful weapon.  That's the least of Tony's problems though as the use of the Iron Man outfit is slowly killing him with possibly a year to live.  He turns over control of Stark Industries to secretary and girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and starts to live things up. It's hard to be the best though and rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is using the talents of a pissed off Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) to create his own deadlier version of the Iron Man.

Now regardless of how this cast was utilized or underutilized, I can say that without a doubt this is one of the best casts ever put together for a summer blockbuster.  Downer Jr. again cements himself as one of Hollywood's best actors here playing cocky, narcissistic, downright arrogant Tony Stark who somehow is still lovable.  Paltrow isn't used as well here as the first one and seems like more of an afterthought than anything.  Indie star Rockwell and rejuvenated Rourke are great choices to play the villains even though they're both underused, especially a scene-stealing Rourke.  Then don't forget Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D, Don Cheadle stepping in for Terrence Howard as Colonel Rhodes (an upgrade from the 1st movie), and Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman (Black Widow, member of Shield).

Can you have too much of a good thing though?  That cast is downright impressive, but other than Downey Jr. none of them are given a ton to do.  They're introduced into the storyline, fade out, and then reappear later as needed.  And from someone who is definitely looking forward to The Avengers movie, that whole subplot feels like it's being shoved down our throats as viewers.  But that's the problem with the whole movie for me.  There is a ton going on, and then nothing at all at the same time.  For almost 90 minutes, nothing happens other than Tony moping around.  Favreau has all these great elements and can't peg down what he wants to do with it.  The first Iron Man certainly had some slower moving segments too, but here they're just more noticeable.  At 124 minutes, this is a movie that could have been cut by 15 or 20 minutes and been a sleeker, more compact finished product.

Now to counter 90 minutes of basically nothingness, everything is thrown in the last 30 minutes, by far the best part of the movie and one of the better finales in an action movie around.  Stark and Rhodes -- both outfitted in Iron Man outfits -- go toe-to-toe with Ivan's army of drone Iron Men in an epic showdown that never overdoes it with the CGI.  It is an action scene where everything is visible and never moves too fast, keeping you interested even knowing we're watching computerized robots beat the crap out of each other.  Add in Johansson in a skintight leather outfit (to be fair, every movie needs that) kicking ass against endless nameless security guards, and you've got quite a finale.

I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing from this sequel.  It lacks a certain energy the first one had and never truly finds it's footing.  It tries to one-up the original while sticking to its origins but can't find that all-important middle ground.  Downey Jr again is solid, Cheadle is an upgrade, Johansson is beyond gorgeous as the eye candy, Rourke and Rockwell are above average talents, and the action-packed finale is a whopper.  But for whatever reason, it doesn't add up.  Worth watching, but I was disappointed here.

Iron Man 2 <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

The Other Guys

When it comes to current comedic stars, I don't know if there's one that splits audiences so much as Will Ferrell does. Critics say he plays basically the same character in every movie, and to be fair it's not that far from the truth.  But it's a good character, typically a very funny one.  His movies have been hit or miss the last few years with some successes like Step Brothers and bombs like Land of the Lost.  I'm in the 'like' group so I'll basically see anything he's in.  Chugging along at the box office, The Other Guys is a bit of a departure for Ferrell, but in a good way.

It comes from one of the more reliable sub-genres you'll find in movies, the buddy cop movie.  Put two opposites together and let the fireworks begin.  The biggest selling point of 'Other' is that Ferrell doesn't play his typical dolt, and co-star Mark Wahlberg completely commits to being the straight man and gets a ton of laughs in the process. Is it particularly original? Not especially, but through all the cliches this buddy cop venture is funny from beginning to end.  And always important in a comedy, it's quotable with too many good lines to even mention.

In a New York Police Department precinct, unlikely detective partners Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) are in the shadow of other detectives all over the force.  Allen revels in routine and sticking around the office doing paperwork while Terry after an incident with an accidental shooting feels cooped up with nowhere to go.  Almost by accident, Allen and Terry stumble into a major case no one else seems interested in.  A mega-millionaire (Steve Coogan) is in trouble with his clients for losing billions of dollars in a shady business deal (think Madoff).  No one seems to believe these two cops no matter what they say, and it doesn't help that their bumbling technique often gets them in more trouble than necessary.  But something doesn't seem right as Gamble and Hoitz get deeper into the case.

Best starting point is Ferrell and Wahlberg who together have this great chemistry that produces some of the movie's biggest laughs.  Neither of them is hamming for the camera, just letting the lines and the delivery do all the work necessary.  Ferrell in comedies and Wahlberg typically in dramas are both talented guys and play well off each other.  Ferrell's Gamble has a "dark" past that has heavily influenced the way he acts, fearful of what might come out if he resorts to his old ways.  Wahlberg's Hoitz was involved in an accidental shooting (maybe the biggest, funniest surprise of the movie) and is still dealing with the repercussions.  So it's a good start in a comedy, the history is played for laughs as it rightfully should, but we actually get to see some of these two knuckleheads and their past.

Now on the other hand, they're just funny together.  Ferrell is clueless in a kind of adorable ignorance way as opposed to his usually oblivious moron who doesn't realize he's an oblivious moron.  Some of his line deliveries are beyond perfect, including one epic comeback to a threat from Wahlberg that goes on and on, getting better all the way.  Wahlberg was already one of my favorite actors and an ideal choice to play alongside Ferrell's toned down antics.  He's intense, on the edge, a little crazy as this great cop who made one mistake and is still paying for it.  Of course, he realizes this and lashes out -- in a funny way -- at everyone around him.  He sees things that he wishes were there (watch out! Colombian drug lords!) and ends up leaving a very positive impression by the end.

Director Adam McKay has a knack for getting the best out of his supporting cast, including a few surprises here and there. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson are phenomenal in small parts as two super cops who are the pride of the NYPD. Michael Keaton plays Captain Gene, the captain of the precinct, a part incredibly subtle in its humor with one great running gag about him unknowingly quoting TLC songs as motivation/inspiration. Eva Mendes looking as beautiful as ever shows off her comedic chops as Sheila, Allen's smoking hot wife, and Coogan in an underused part as the slimy businessman up the creek and looking for cash.  Ray Stevenson plays the resident bad guy, necessary to look tough every so often. There's some great cameos, including one so perfect I can't ruin it, but NY Yankees fans shouldn't be disappointed.

Reviewing all sorts of movies here, it's nice every so often to just review a movie that's funny non-stop and entertaining with no higher pretensions.  The story just drifts along at times before focusing back on the important elements.  The action toward the end is ridiculous and over the top, the soundtrack sounds like a bad 1980s soundtrack, and there's just enough of a new spin on the buddy cop relationship to keep you guessing what's coming next.  Really though, check this one out for Ferrell and Wahlberg, a nearly perfect comedic team.

The Other Guys <---trailer (2010): ***/****     

Patriot Games

At the time, I'm sure it sounded like a good idea...to Alec Baldwin at least.  After starring as Tom Clancy hero Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October, Baldwin was all ready to come back for a second go-around in 1992's Patriot Games.  For whatever reason, Baldwin decided to do the play he'd signed up for, and the role went to Han Solo/Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford.  Looking back 18 years later, it seems like an easy decision to pick which actor made the right choice.  Ford went on to star in Clear and Present Danger and is still a huge star while Baldwin has really only recently recovered with a bit of a rebirth thanks to 30 Rock and a list of supporting performances in quality movies.

As for Ford in Patriot Games, he's the one that has become synonymous with the part of Jack Ryan.  Yes, I'm remembering Ben Affleck took over the part in Sum of All Fears.  Where Ryan was a key character in 'Red October,' he wasn't the most important part, but with Patriot Games we get more of a look at the character as opposed to the action.  The making of special feature has interviews with several members of the movie, all who bristle to one extent or another when asked if 'PG' is an action movie.   It does have its fair share of action, but a character study with some action thrown in is more applicable.  I love Red October and Present Danger is a near-classic so Patriot Games had its work cut out and lived up to the expectations.

While vacationing in London, former CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ford) stumbles into an assassination attempt on a member of the Royal family.  In the blink of an eye, he reacts, killing two assassins and capturing a third, Sean Miller (Sean Bean).  The royal family is saved, and Ryan even testifies in court about the attempt and his involvement in stopping the murder.  Ryan and his wife Cathy (Anne Archer) and daughter Sally (Thora Birch) return home thinking everything is behind them. Not so fast, because Miller escapes during transit and rejoins the fanatical members of this IRA splinter group.  Headed by Kevin O'Connell (Patrick Bergin), the group still has their sites set on the Royal family, and for Miller especially, he wants revenge on Ryan because one of the men he killed was Sean's younger brother.  But after an attempt is made on his family's lives, Ryan goes on the offensive.

With two of the most successful franchises under his belt -- Star Wars and Indiana Jones -- Ford was about as bankable a star as existed in 1992.  Sometimes I think he's judged more as a star than an actor, but the man can act plain and simple.  Playing a character like Jack Ryan, he gets a chance to show off those chops in a story that doesn't rely on fantasy settings and 1930s-esque cliffhangers.  Ford's Ryan is a family man always looking out for his wife and daugther who teaches classes at the Naval Academy in Annapolis who's left his CIA past (as a desk jockey) behind him.  His confrontation with IRA rep Richard Harris is so sublimely perfect (watch it HERE) in showing though that he is not a man to be trifled with.  Ford handles the action nicely -- doing most of his own stunts -- but balances it out with some very emotional scenes with his family.  Archer and Birch round out the family, and the trio have a definite chemistry together that would continue into Clear and Present Danger.

British actor Sean Bean is at his best when he's playing a villain, and this is him at his absolute best.  He's beyond creepy in his devotion to the cause and seeking revenge for his brother's death (which he had a hand in causing but blames others, go figure).  His Miller drifts in and out of the story, and whether intentional or not, it works well because he's a presence lurking and waiting to attack.  Bergin and Polly Walker are the more even-keeled but still deadly members of the splinter group.  The rest of the cast isn't given a ton to do, but the names alone make this appealing.   Harris makes the most of a small part as does Samuel L. Jackson, James Earl Jones, and  James Fox. Would it have been nice to see more of these great actors?  Sure, but the focus of the story is Ryan vs. Miller and other backstories would have been unnecessary in this really tight, wel-told story.

Patriot Games does have some great action, including a tension-filled chase through Annapolis and on a nearby freeway, that is highlighted by the end as the IRA splinter group descends on a darkened Ryan household after the power's been pulled.  This isn't enough though with the action really ramping up after they leave the house.  Great ending with a fitting end for several characters.  The coolest part though puts a new spin on the action scene.  Ryan and some fellow CIA associates watch an SAS attack on a terrorist camp in North Africa via satellite imagery.  So instead of hearing the gunshots and seeing explosions, we see these eerie colors and shapes being thrown around, one analyst matter of factly stating 'That's a kill.'  It's an incredible sequence and surprisingly moving as Ryan sees the affect his investigation has had.  He was always looking to protect his family, but seeing it via satellite thousands of miles away, it's a haunting experience.

Coming from a Tom Clancy novel, you know you're getting a high quality, very professional movie.  Director Phillip Noyce films on location in London with some dreary looking English locations adding some mood, and then films in Annapolis itself which always translates well to the screen.  It's a beautiful campus, and it would be hard to mess up those locations.  Composer James Horner's score is not his strongest, but the soundtrack is at its best in its Irish themes.  I didn't love the movie, but I did really enjoy it.  Not quite as good as Red October but right on par with Clear and Present Danger, and that's not a bad thing.

Patriot Games <----trailer (1992): ***/****